SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.65 issue2On geometro dynamics in atomic stationary statesElastic scattering of one-proton halo nucleus 17F on different mass targets using semi microscopic potentials author indexsubject indexsearch form
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO

Share


Revista mexicana de física

Print version ISSN 0035-001X

Rev. mex. fis. vol.65 n.2 México Mar./Apr. 2019  Epub Apr 17, 2020

https://doi.org/10.31349/revmexfis.65.159 

Investigación

Nuclear structure study of 22,24Ne and 24Mg nuclei

Fouad A. Majeeda 

Sarah M. Obaidb 

1Department of Physics, College of Education for Pure Sciences, University of Babylon, Babylon, Iraq.

2Department of Physics, College of Education for Pure Science (Ibn-Alhaitham), University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq.


Abstract

Shell model calculations based on large basis has been conducted to study the nuclear structure of 20 Ne, 22 Ne and 24 Mg nuclei. The energy levels, inelastic electron scattering form factors and transition probabilities are discussed by considering the contribution of configurations with high-energy beyond the model space of sd-shell model space which is denoted as the core polarization effects. The Core polarization is considered by taking the excitations of nucleus from the 1s and 1p core orbits and also from the valence 2s 1d shell orbits into higher shells with 4ω . The effective interactions USDA and USDB are employed with sd shell model space to perform the calculation and the core polarization are calculated with MSDI as residual interaction. The calculated energy level schemes, form factors and transition probabilities were compared with the corresponding experimental data. The effect of core polarization is found very important for the calculation of B(C2) , B(C4) and form factors, and gives excellent results in comparison with the experimental data without including any adjustable parameters.

Keywords: Nuclear structure; electron scattering form factors; core polarization effects

PACS: 25.30.Dh; 21.60.Cs; 27.30.+t

1. Introduction

The nuclear shell model proved to be very successful tool to investigate the nuclear structure: by choosing an adequate residual effective interaction, the shell model able to account for various observables accurately and systematically. The nuclear structure study progressed by developing the nuclear shell model1. Although the shell model is basically simple, it explains many nuclear properties such as spin, magnetic moment, and nuclear spectra. The shell model is composed of two fundamental kinds of models which are related to the basis of the shell model: the models of the mean-field and they configuration mixing models2. The sd-shell is an interesting region for shell model calculations which can be investigated by elastic magnetic electron scattering, where the nucleus is considered as an inert 16 O and the full 1d5/2 , 2s1/2 , 1d3/2 space is used for the valance nucleons. Excitation to the higher shell are ignored in the model. Calculations based on this model may not be able to reproduce the experimental observations or to agree with the experimental form factors. Effective charges are adopted in many previous studies in which the effective g-factors were implied. The (q)-dependence of form factors on the momentum transfer resulting from configuration mixing is very different for a different major shell, and cannot in general be considered as a q independent scaling3. The shell model electron scattering form factors needs to be modified by including higher configurations, called core polarization effect. These effects are considered as a supplement to the usual shell-model treatments, which gives more practical efforts to account for the Coulomb excitations collectivity. A model based on micorscopic approach has been used to account for CP effects between states of single particle with LS closed shell4. Radhi et al.5-8 have argued previously that the CP effects are essential to be taken into consideration for nuclei lies in the p -shell and sd-shell to improve the calculations of the form factors. The single quadrupole transitions Coulomb form factors for electron scattering in the p-shell 10 B nucleus have been investigated by F. A. Majeed9, in which 2ω excitations were considered by prompting necleons from the core orbits to higher orbits to account for CP effects. The high energy configuration effect were considered by means of core polarization effect have been investigated by Majeedet al.10 on the C2 and C4 form factors of some selected nuclei lies in the fp-shell region. The core polarization were calculated by employing harmonic oscillator (HO) and Skyrme-Hartree Fock (Skx) as residual interactions. Majeed et al.11 investigated the effect of the configuration of high energy for the positive and negative parity states form factors for longitudinal and transverse cases.

The goal of the current study is to investigate the nuclear structure of 20 Ne, 22 Ne and 24 Mg nuclei. In particular, energy levels, inelastic electron scattering form factors and transition probabilities using shell model codes CP and NushellX@MSU for windows12. The study of C2 and C4 for this nuclei including configurations of high-energies by utilizing the first-order perturbation theory to account for the CP effects. The zeroth contribution for the single-particle wave functions are used and the effect of CP, is taken into consideration by perturbation theory of first order with the residual interaction which is the modified surface delta interaction (MSDI) 13. The potential of harmonic-oscillator (HO) with the size parameter b is taken to account for the root-mean-square (rms) charge radii of the studied nuclei.

The effect of CP on the form factors is derived from a microscopic theory that allows the basis function of the shell and the configurations with higher-energy to be combined as perturbations of first order. The electron scattering operator TΛ , written in terms of the reduced matrix elements which consists of the residual interaction Vres as the sum of the product of the density matrix of one-body (DMOB) elements χΓfΓiΛ (α, β) times he matrix element of single particle, and is given by,

Of|||TΛ|||Oi=Of|||TΛ|||Oims+Of|||δTΛ|||OiCP, (1)

where Oi and Of are the model space states. The quantum numbers are denoted by Greek symbols in space and isospace coordinates, i.e. OiJiTi , OfJfTf and Λ=JT .

The matrix of the model space (ms) consists of the sum of the product of the matrix element of the density matrix of one-body (DMOB) χOfOiΛ (α,β) times the matrix element of the single-particle as follows ,

Of|||TΛ|||Oims=α,βχOfOiΛ(α,β)α|||TΛ|||β, (2)

with the single-particle states α and β are to account for the model space where the isospin is included.

The matrix element of the configurations with higher energy (CP) is similarly written as

Of|||δTΛ|||OiCP=α,βχOfOiΛ(α,β)α|||δTΛ|||β, (3)

α|||δTΛ|||β=α|||TΛQEi-H0Vres|||β+α|||VresQEf-H0TΛ|||β. (4)

where Q represent the projection operator, which projects onto the model space. The MSDI is adopted as the residual interaction Vres and Ei and Ef are the energies of the initial and final states, respectively.

The MSDI effective interaction that was adopted for the calculation of the CP effects is a very adequate choice due to its adjustable parameters that allows us to reliably consider the CP effects with respect to the model space. The MSDI can be written as

j1j2|V(1,2)MSDI|j3j4JT=-AT(2j1+1)(2j2+1)2(2J+1)(1+δ12)×{j2-12j112|J02[1-(-1)l1+l2+J+T]+j212j112|J12[1-(-1)T]}+[2T(T+1)-3]+B+C (5)

where j2-(1/2)j1(1/2)|J0 , j2(1/2)j1(1/2)|J1 are Clebsch-Gordan coefficients15, T is the nuclear isospin, B and C are parameters obtained from the fitting to the experimental data for various mass region. The parameters AT with T taken as 0 or 1, B and C are approximated as13

A0A1B=25AandC0, (6)

where A is the mass number.

The CP terms are written as

α|||δTΛ|||β=α1,α2,Γ(-1)β+α2+Γeβ-eα-eα1+eα2(2Γ+1)×{αβΛα2α1Γ}(1+δα1α)(1+δα2β)×αα1|Vres|βα2α2|||TΛ|||α1+terms withα1andα2exchanged with an overall minus sign (7)

where α1 and α2 indices which runs over particles states and e is the energy for single-particle states. The CP terms are determined from the intermediate states up to the 2p1f-shells. The matrix element of the single-particle is reduced in both spin and isospin is expressed in terms of the matrix element of the single reduced in spin only13.

α2|||TΛ|||α1=2T+12tzIT(tz)α2||TΛ||α1 (8)

with

IT(tz)=1,forT=0,(-1)1/2-tz,forT=1,

where tz=-1/2 for neutrons and 1/2 for protons. The matrix element of the single-particle Coulomb operator is expressed as[14]

α2||TJ||α1=0drr2jJ(qr)α2||YJ||α1Rn1l1Rn2l2 (9)

where jJ(qr) is the Bessel function in spherical coordinates and Rnl(r) is the radial wavefunction for the single particle.

The form factors for electron scattering involves the momentum transfer q and angular momentum J, between the initial and final nuclear shell model states of spin Ji,f and isospin Ti,f 3 is 3

|FJ(q)|2=4πZ2(2Ji+1)|T=0,1(TfTTi-Tz0Tz)|2×|α2|||TΛ|||α1|2|Fc.m(q)|2 |Ff.s(q)|2 (10)

where Tz is the final isospin states projected along z-axis and is evaluated by the relation Tz=(Z-N)/2 . The form factor for the finite size of the nucleon (f.s) is Ff.s(q)=exp(-0.43q2/4) and Fc.m(q)=exp(q2b2/4A) represent the translational invariance lack in the shell model. A is the mass number and b is the size parameter for harmonic oscillator.

The strength of the electric transition is

B(CJ,k)=Z24π(2J+1)!!kJ2FJ2(k) (11)

where k=Ex/c .

The Tassie model (TM) used for the core polarization in NushellX@MSU is a modelling of more elasticity and modification that allows a non-uniform mass and charge density distribution. The CP charge density in TM model depends on the ground state charge density of the nucleus. The ground state charge density is expressed in terms of the two-body charge density for all occupied shells including the core. Based on the collective modes of the nuclei, the Tassie shape core polarization transition density is given by16.

ρJtzcore(i,f,r)=N12(1+τz)rJ-1dρ0(i,f,r)dr (12)

where N is a proportionality constant and ρ0 is the ground state two- body charge density distribution, which is given

ρ0=ψ|ρ^eff(2)(r)|ψ=i<jij|ρ^eff(2)(r)[|ij-|ji] (13)

where

ρ^eff(2)(r)=12(A-1)f(rij)ijδ(r-ri)+δ(r-ri)f(rij)

i and j are all the required quantum numbers, i.e. ini,li,ji,mi,ti,mti and jnj,lj,jj,mj,tj,mtj where the functions f(rij) are the two body short range correlation (SRC). In this work, a simple model form of short range correlation has been adopted, i.e.

f(rij)=1-exp[-β(rij-rc)2]

where rc is the radius of a suitable hard-core and β is a correlation parameter. The Coulomb form factor for this model becomes:-

FJL(q)=4π2Ji+11Z{0r2jJ(qr)ρJms(i,f,r)dr+N0drr2jJ(qr)rJ-1dρ0(i,f,r)dr}Fcm(q)Ffc(q) (14)

The radial integral

0drrJ+1jJ(qr)dρ0(i,f,r)dr

can be written as:-

0ddr{rJ+1jJ(qr)ρ0(i,f,r)}dr-0dr(J+1)rJjJ(qr)ρ0(i,f,r)-0drrJ+1ddrjJ(qr)ρ0(i,f,r) (15)

where the first term gives zero contribution, the second and the third term can be combined together as

-q0drrJ+1ρ0(i,f,r)dd(qr)+J+1qrjJ(qr) (16)

from the recursion of the spherical Bessel function:

dd(qr)+J+1qrjJ(qr)=jJ-1(qr) (17)

0drrJ+1jj(qr)dρ0(i,f,r)dr=-q0drrJ+1jJ-1ρ0(i,f,r)

Therefore, the form factor of Eq. ( number ) takes the form:

FJL(q)=(4π2Ji+1)1/21Z{0r2jJ(qr)ρJtzmsdr-Nq0drrJ+1ρ0jJ-1(qr)}×Fcm(q)Ffs(q) (18)

The proportionality constant N can be determined from the form factor evaluated at q=k , i.e. substituting q=k in the equation above we obtained

N=0drr2jJ(kr)ρJtzms(i,f,r)-FJL(k)Z2Ji+14π0drrJ+1ρ0(i,f,r)jJ-1(kr) (19)

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. The excitation energies

The core is taken at 16O for all nuclei under the study with 4 , 6 and 8 particles outside the core for 20Ne, 22Ne and 24Mg respectively. Figure 1 displays our theoretical work in comparison to the experimental data18 for 20 Ne nucleus. Our calculations predicts the values 2+ at 1.696 MeV and 1.747 MeV, by employing the effective interactions usda and usdb , respectively. The difference between 2+ is found to be 62 keV and 113 keV in comparison with the corresponding experimental data using usda and usdb , respectively. The 1+ has been confirmed by our theoretical calculations which is not confirmed experimentally using both effective interactions. The theoretical predication compared to the the corresponding experimental data of the energy levels for positive parity states of 22Ne nucleus is shown in Fig. 2. Our calculations predicts the values 2+ at 1.310 MeV and 1.363 MeV, by utilizing the effective interactions usda and usdb , respectively. The difference between 2+ is found to be 35 KeV and 88 keV in comparison with the corresponding experimental data using usda and usdb , respectively. Many unconfirmed experimental energy levels for this nucleus have been confirmed. Figure 3 shows the theoretical energy spectra for 24Mg nucleus in comparison with the experimental data18. The predicted values for 2+ levels is found at 1.491 MeV and 1.502 MeV using usda and usdb effective interactions, respectively. The absolute difference for the 2+ level and the corresponding experimental data is 122 keV and 133 keV using usda and usdb effective interactions, respectively. All the energy levels ordering is predicted correctly for 24Mg nucleus.

Figure 1 Calculations of the excitation energies compared to the corresponding experimental data[18] using usda and usdb effective interactions for 20 Ne nucleus. 

Figure 2 Calculations of the excitation energies compared to the corresponding experimental data18 using usda and usdb effective interactions for 22Ne nucleus. 

Figure 3 Calculations of the excitation energies compared to the corresponding experimental data18 using usda and usdb effective interactions for 24Mg nucleus.  

2.2. Electron scattering form factors

The MSDI residual effective interaction is employed to calculate the CP effects. The parameters of the MSDI residual effective interaction are AT , B and C13, where T is the isospin which takes the values 0 or 1 . The MSDI parameters are estimated from A0=A1=B=25/A and C=0 , where A represent the mass number. In all the proceeding figures below “see Fig. 1 panel (a)", the dashed curve gives the results obtained using the sd shell model calculations without CP effects. The dotted curve represents the contribution from the CP only. The blue solid curves represent the calculations including the core polarization contribution over the model space calculations (sd+CP) and the red solid line gives the results obtained for the Tassie model from NushellX with different set of proton eπ and eν effective charges.

TABLE I The estimated values of the reduced transition probabilities B(C2 ↑) (in units of e 2 fm 4) and B(C4 ↑) (in units of e 2 fm 8 x 103) compared with the corresponding experimental data. 

Nucleus Jfπ Tf Ex (MeV) ms ms +CP Exp.
20Ne 21+ 0 1.634 145.1 461.3 292.07±37.72a
41+ 0 4.247 12.07 55.98 38±8 b
22Ne 21+ 0 1.275 166 248.7 229.8±42c
41+ 0 3.357 4.42 9.02 --
24Mg 21+ 0 1.369 119.5 390.7 428.9±8.74 a
22+ 0 4.238 12.17 25.47 22.37±0.053 a
42+ 0 6.011 11.75 23.98 43±6 d

aRef.19, bRef.20, cRef.21, dRef.22.

2.2.1. 20Ne Nucleus

1.634 MeV, JfπT=21+0 state

Figure 4 panel (a) displayed the C2 form factor calculation for the state (JfπT=21+0) at Ex=1.634 MeV. The calculations of the sd shell model space only underestimates the experimental data, when the CP effects are considered, the calculation improved markedly, that made the form factor reproduce the experimental data over the entire range of the momentum transfer q. The predicted value of the B(C2) for the sd -shell is 145.1 e2fm4 compared to the measured value 292.07 ± 37.72 e2fm4 . Including the CP effect in the calculations of the B(C2) predicts the value to be 461.3 e2fm4 . The Tassie model calculations agrees reasonably well with the fist diffractions maxima and able to locate the experimental diffraction minima. The Tassie model underestimate the measured data in the second diffraction maxima. In general the B(C2) reproduce the shape of the form factor and the theoretical calculation of the transition probability agrees reasonably well with the corresponding experimental probability as shown in Fig. 1 panel (b) for the state21+ at 1.634 MeV. The inclusion of the CP effects is found to be very essential for both form factor and B(C2) calculations.

Figure 4 Panel (a) the longitudinal C2 form factor for 2+0 (1.634 MeV) in 20Ne. The measured values are from Ref.23 and panel (b) is the theoretical and experimental B(C2,q) for the 1.634 MeV (21+) state of 20Ne. 

4.247 MeV, JfπT=41+0 state

Figure 5 presents the C4 form factor calculation in which the sd -shell model predictions are lower than the experiment and considering the CP effects improves the form factor calculations that reproduced the experiment in detail all over the entire range of the momentum transfer q. The calculated B(C2) value is 12.07×103 e2fm8 excluding CP) effects and 55.98×103 e2fm8 including the CP effects along with the measured value 38±8 e2fm8 20. The Tassie model calculations underestimate the measured data in all momentum transfer dependance.

Figure 5 The longitudinal C4 form factor for 41+0 (4.247 MeV) in 20Ne. The measured data from23

2.2.2. 22Ne Nucleus

1.275 MeV, JfπT=21+0 state and 4.456 MeV, JfπT=22+0 state.

The form factor for the C2 transition for the states 21+ and 22+ calculations are displayed in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. The sd -shell model calculations has a shortfall in describing the experimental form factors and the (sd+CP) calculations are remarkably agreed with the measured values. The model space predicts the value B(C2) to be 166 e2fm4 in comparison with the measured value 229.8±42e2fm4 . The calculated B(C2) including the CP effects predicts the value of 248.7 e2fm4 . The Tassie model overshoots the measured data for the C2form factor.

3.357 MeV, JfπT=41+0 state

Figure 6 The longitudinal C2 form factor for 21+0 (1.275 MeV) in 22Ne. The measured data from24

Figure 7 The longitudinal C2 form factor for 22+0 (4.456 MeV) in 22Ne. The measured data from24

Figure 8 displays the C4 form factor of the longitudinal transition for the JfπT=41+0 state at Ex=3.357 MeV of 22Ne. Theoretical model space predictions underestimate the measured values. The model space calculations along with CP effects taken into consideration improves the form factors calculations up to q<1.0fm-1 . The predicted value of B(C2) is 4.42 e2fm8×103 without the CP effects and 9.02 e2fm8×103 when the CP effects included. The Tassie model calculations with effective charges reproduce the measured data better than the model space calculations including the CP effects in the momentum transfer region up to q<1fm-1 . The success of the Tassie model for this state might be attributed to the charge density that has a direct effect from the proton and neutron effective charges.

Figure 8 The longitudinal C4 form factor for 41+0 (3.357 MeV) in 22Ne. The measured data from24

2.2.3. 24Mg Nucleus

1.369 MeV, JfπT=21+0 state

The form factor for C2 transition state (Jfπ=2+,T=0) at Ex=1.369 MeV of the 24Mg is displayed in Fig. 9 panel (a) where the model space calculations have a shortfall in describing the measured data. There is a remarkable enhancement in the calculations of the form factors for the first maxima and overshoots the data at the second maxima when the CP effects are included. The Tassie calculations reproduce the second maxima better than sd+CP calculations and this might be attributed to the effective charge used for this state. The model space estimate the value of B(C2) to be 119.5 e2fm4 , while the sd+CP with usda effective interaction is 390.7 e2fm4 compared to the measured value 428.9±8.74 e2fm4 . The comparison of the calculated B(C2,q) as function of the momentum transfer with the corresponding experimental data are shown in Fig. 9 panel (b). The model space calculations of B(C2,q) underestimated the measured data in the momentum transfer region 0q1.2fm-1 . The sd and (sd+CP ) calculations are both able to locate the diffraction minima accurately. The B(C2,q) calculations start to deviate in the region 0q2.0fm-1 and the (sd+CP) calculations improved markedly to agree reasonably well with the experimental data. The location of the diffraction minima of B(C2,q) is located accurately for both sd and sd+CP calculations. The calculated transition strength B(C2) is 390.7 e2fm4 agrees very well with the measured valueB(C2) is 428.9±8.74 e2fm4 which is obtained at the limit q0 . The Tassie model calculations of the C2 form factor for this state are in excellent agreement in all momentum transfer regions and are more closer to describe the second maxima at high momentum transfer.

Figure 9 Panel (a) the longitudinal C2 form factor for 21+0 (1.369 MeV) state in 24Mg. The measured values from22 and panel (b) theoretical and experimental B(C2,q) for the 1.369 MeV (21+) state of 24Mg. 

4.238 MeV, JfπT=22+0 state

Figure 10 panel (a) presents the calculations of the 22+0 (4.238 MeV) state. The calculations without the inclusion of CP effects have a shortfall in describing the measured data. The (sd + CP) calculations are in remarkably better agreement with the experimental data. CP effects enhance the form factor and reproduce the measured form factor in the first maxima. The model space calculations for B(C2) gives 12.17 e2fm4 value in comparison with the measured value of 22.37±0.053 e2fm4 and including the CP effects predicts the value 25.47 e2fm4 . The Tassie model calculations are very close to the model space calculations especially in the first maxima. The measured data in the high momentum transfer are very few, that we can not decide which one is in better agreement with the experiment. The calculation of the B(C2) for the 22+ state are shown by Fig. 10 panel (b) where the model space calculations underestimate the measured data, the sd+CP calculations are able to reproduce the measured B(C2) values for the momentum transfer region q2.1fm-1 and fail to reproduce that measured data 2.1q3.5fm-1 .

Figure 10 Panel (a) the longitudinal C2 form factor for 22+0 (4.238 MeV) in 24Mg. The data are taken from25 and panel (b) theoretical and experimental B(C2,q) for the 4.238 MeV (22+) state of 24Mg. 

4.123 MeV, JfπT=41+0 state and 6.011 MeV, JfπT=42+0 state

The form factor for the transition C4 of the states (4.123 MeV, 6.011 MeV) 41+ and 42+ calculations are manifested in Figs. 11 and 12 respectively. The model space have a shortfall in reproducing the measured data and when the CP effects are considered, the calculations improved very well to be able to reproduce the measured data. The Tassie model with effective charges for proton and neutron is able to reproduce the data for both studied states. The calculated transition probability B(C4) without include CP effect is 11.75 e2fm4×103 , compared with the measured value 43±6 e2fm4×103 22 and the predicted value with CP effects included is 23.98e2fm8×103 .

Figure 11 The longitudinal C2 form factor for 41+0 (4.123 MeV) in 24Mg. Measured values from25

Figure 12 The longitudinal C2 form factor for 42+0 (6.011 MeV) in 24Mg. Measured values from25

3. Conclusion

The nuclear structure of 20Ne, 22Ne and 24Mg nuclei have been studied by employing the shell model with usda and usdb effective interactions designed for the sd-shell region. The core polarization effects have been considered by a microscopic theory that allows the excitation to 4ω , without any adjustable parameters that were used previously when the core polarization effects is taken by the concept of the effective proton and neutron effective charges. The level excitation spectra, transition probabilities and inelastic electron scattering form factors have been addressed in the present study. The shell model prediction have a shortfall in describing the form factors and the CP effect must be taken into consideration to be able to reproduce the longitudinal C2 and C4 form factors. The Tassie model with proton and neutron effective charges is able to reproduce the C2 and C4 form factors for all the studied states of the nuclei under study.

Acknowledgments

Authors are grateful to Prof. R. A. Radhi for providing them with his core polarization code and for fruitful discussion and suggestions to improve the work.

References

1. R. R. Roy and B. P. Nigam, Nuclear Physics Theory and Experiment, John Willey and Sons Inc, (1967). [ Links ]

2. B A. Brown, Nucl. Phys.A 704 (2002) 11-20. [ Links ]

3. T. W. Donnelly and I. Sick, Rev. Mod. Phys. 56 (1984) 461. [ Links ]

4. Y. Horikawa, T. Hoshino, and A. Arima, Nucl. Phys.A 278 (1977) 297-318. [ Links ]

5. R. A. Radhi, A. A. Abdullah, Z. A. Dakhil, and N. M. Adeeb, Nucl.Phys. A 696 (2001) 442-452. [ Links ]

6. R. A. Radhi , Nuclear Physics A 707 (2002) 56-64. [ Links ]

7. R. A. Radhi , Eur. Phys. J.A. 16 (2003) 381-385. [ Links ]

8. R. A. Radhi and A. Bouchebak, Nucl. Phys. A 716 (2003) 87-99 . [ Links ]

9. Fouad A. Majeed, Physica Scripta 85 (2012) 065201. [ Links ]

10. Fouad A. Majeed and Fatima M. Hussain, Rom. Journ. Phys. 85 (2014) 065201. [ Links ]

11. F. A. Majeed and L. A. Najim, Indian J. Phys 89 (2015) 611-618. [ Links ]

12. B. A. Brown and W. D. M. Rae, Nucl. Data Sheets 120 (2014) 115-118. [ Links ]

13. P. J. Brussaard and P. W. M. Glaudemans, “Shell-Model Applications in Nuclear Spectroscopy" Amsterdam: North-Holland, (1977). [ Links ]

14. B. A. Brown , R. Radhi, and B. H. Wildenthal, Phys. Rep. 101 (1983) 313-358. [ Links ]

15. A. R. Edmonds, Princeton university press (2016). [ Links ]

16. L. J. Tassie, Aust. J. Phys. 9 (1956) 407-418. [ Links ]

17. T. de Forest Jr. , J. D. Walecka, Adv. Phys. 15 (1966) 1-109. [ Links ]

18. J. Tuli, Evaluated nuclear structure data file (ensdf). (Accessed March,13, 2018). [ Links ]

19. P. M. Endt, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 23 (1979) 547-585. [ Links ]

20. R. P. Singhal, H. S. Caplan, J. R. Moreira, and T. E. Drake, Cand. J. Phys 51 (1973) 2125-2137. [ Links ]

21. B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, M. Horoi and B. Singh, Nucl. data Sheets 51 (2014) 112-114. [ Links ]

22. G. C. Li, M. R. Yearian, and I. Sick, Phys. Rev. C 9 (1974) 1861. [ Links ]

23. Y. Horikawa , Y. Torizuka, A. Nakada, S. Mitsunobu, Y. Kojima, and M. Kimura, Phys. Lett. B, 36 (1971) 9-11. [ Links ]

24. X. K. Maruyama et al., Phys. Rev. C 19 1624. [ Links ]

25. H.Zarek et al., Phys. Lett. B 80 (1978) 26-29. [ Links ]

Received: September 01, 2018; Accepted: October 09, 2018

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License