Elastic scattering and breakup of 17 F at 10 MeV/nucleon
J. F. Liang 1 , J. R. Beene 1 , H. Esbensen 2 , A. Galindo-Uribarri 1 , J. Gomez del Campo 1 ,
C. J. Gross 1 - 3 , M. L. Halbert 1 , P. E. Mueller 1 , D. Shapira 1 , D. W. Stracener 1 ,
I. J. Thompson 4 and R. L. Varner 1
1 Physics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
^Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 604-39, USA
3 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
^Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH, United Kingdom
(February 8, 2008)
Angular distributions of fluorine and oxygen produced from 170 MeV 17 F
incident on 208 Pb were measured. The elastic scattering data are in good
agreement with optical model calculations using a double-folding potential
and parameters similar to those obtained from 16 O+ 208 Pb. A large yield of
oxygen was observed near #i a b = 36°. It is reproduced fairly well by a calcu-
lation of the ( 17 F, 16 0) breakup, which is dominated by one-proton stripping
reactions. The discrepancy between our previous coincidence measurement
and theoretical predictions was resolved by including core absorption in the
PACS number(s): 25.60.-t, 25.60.Bx, 25.60.Gc, 25.70.-z
Typeset using REVI^X
Our knowledge of atomic nuclei comes from experiments with nuclei in the valley of
stability. The advent of radioactive beams enables us to explore nuclei near and beyond the
drip lines and provides tests of current nuclear structure models. Nuclear reactions are often
used as tools for studying nuclear structure. Breakup is an important reaction channel in
the scattering of weakly bound nuclei and can be a rich source of information on reaction
mechanisms and the structure of such nuclei [l|-[4j .
Fluorine-17 is a proton drip-line nucleus with its valence proton bound by 0.6 MeV.
Because of this loose binding, the r.m.s. radius, 3.7 fm ||, is significantly larger than
that of the 16 core. Furthermore, the first excited state of 17 F, E x = 0.495 MeV and
J 71 " = | + , is reported to have an extended r.m.s. radius, 5.3 fm |5, and is considered to
be a nuclear halo state. Studies of the influence on fusion of breakup of weakly bound
nuclei has generated considerable interest in recent years [H]. The measurement of fusion
of 17 F on 208 Pb at energies near the Coulomb barrier found no fusion enhancement Jr|.
In our previous measurement of the breakup of 17 F by detecting the breakup products,
proton and 16 0, simultaneously, a very small cross section was observed and disagreed with
theoretical predictions ||. That experiment used a large area detector to optimize the
collection efficiency; the measured cross sections were averaged over the angles spanned by
A recent study of the breakup reaction 8 B — > 7 Be+p on a 58 Ni target at sub-Coulomb
energies [[| demonstrated that the resulting 7 Be angular distribution can be accounted for by
two different theoretical approaches, coupled discretized-continuum channels (CDCC) Jirj
and dynamical calculation |fLl|| . With this in mind, we have performed a new experiment
on the breakup of 17 F by measuring the angular distribution of reaction products in singles.
The data provide some details of the cross section over a range of angles and no Monte Carlo
simulation is required for obtaining the efficiency of the detectors, unlike the coincidence
measurement. However, the identification of reaction products with the breakup channel
is not as straightforward as in the coincidence measurement, since similar products can be
produced in several reaction channels. With the aid of theoretical calculations, the dominant
reaction products were shown to originate from breakup.
The experiment was carried out at the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility (HRIBF)
using a 170 MeV 17 F beam incident on a 2 mg/cm 2 208 Pb target. A 44 MeV deuteron beam
provided by the Oak Ridge Isochronous Cyclotron (ORIC) was used to bombard a fibrous
hafnium oxide target to produce radioactive 17 F by the 16 0(d,n) reaction |12|]. The A=17
ions were extracted from the target-ion source, mass analyzed and subsequently accelerated
by the 25 MV tandem postaccelerator. The 17 isobar contaminant was removed by inserting
a carbon stripper foil at the exit of the tandem accelerator, before the 90° analyzing magnet,
and selecting the fully stripped 17 F 9+ ion beam. The beam was monitored by a Si surface
barrier detector positioned at 10° to the beam direction in the target chamber as well as by
the focal plane detector in the Enge spectrograph at 3° on the other side of the beam. The
average beam intensity was 5 x 10 5 17 F/s. The reaction products were detected at 9^ = 45°
by a AE-E telescope consisting of a large area (900 mm 2 ) 100 fim Si surface barrier detector
(SBD) and a 5 cmx5 cm, 300 fim double-sided Si strip detector (DSSD) behind the SBD.
The DSSD, which has 16 vertical and 16 horizontal strips, was placed 8.3 cm from the target,
resulting in an angular resolution of ~ 2°. At forward angles, the elastically scattered 17 F
was measured by the DSSD only.
Figure [T] shows the E vs. AE histogram of the SBD-DSSD telescope for events in all the
strips. Reaction products of Z=9(F), 8(0), 7(N), 6(C), 5(B) and 1(H) were observed. The
band of constant energy loss (AE) at channel number ~ 135, corresponding to the energy
loss of the elastically scattered 17 F, results from the positron decay of 17 F stopped in the
DSSD. These events were recorded when a positron emission took place at the same time as
an elastic 17 F struck another strip in the DSSD.
The elastic scattering data were extracted from the Z=9 products identified in this E
vs. AE histogram. The energy resolution of the detectors was not good enough to allow
a clear separation between the elastic and inelastic scattering events. Moreover, the mass
of the reaction products cannot be identified in this experiment. Since there are some
neutron pickup channels with positive Q values, the elastic scattering data may include
contributions from inelastic scattering and neutron transfer reactions. The absolute cross
section was obtained by normalizing the yields to the Si detector at 10° where the elastic
scattering was taken as Rutherford scattering. The elastic scattering angular distribution
is shown in Fig. 0. As can be seen, the assumption of pure Rutherford scattering at 10° is
Optical model fits to the elastic scattering data were performed using the code Ptolemy
T3fl . The Woods-Saxon potential parameters were taken from the 192 MeV 16 + 208 Pb
elastic scattering  and only the depth of the imaginary potential was allowed to vary. The
best-fit result is shown by the dotted curve in Fig. § and the parameters are listed in Table |
as SET I. Parameters in SET II of Table | were obtained using the procedures described in
Ref. |14| by fitting the data with the depth of the real potential, V, fixed at 40 MeV and
varying the other parameters. Throughout the fitting processes, the shape of the real and
imaginary potential was assumed to be the same. The imaginary potential depth, W, was
changed from 35 to 95 MeV in 5 MeV steps and the radius and diffuseness parameters, r
and a, were varied to find the minimum \ 2 . The best fit is shown by the dash-dotted curve.
The radius and diffuseness parameters were very similar to those obtained in the 140 MeV
i6q _j_ 208pk e i as ti c scattering [Tj|. The dashed curve, corresponding to parameter SET III,
is the result of allowing all the parameters, V, W, r, and a, to vary subject to the constraint
that r and a were identical for the real and imaginary potentials. The dashed curve and
dash-dotted curve are almost indistinguishable. All three sets of parameters describe the
data very well at angles smaller than 41°. However, differences between the dotted curve
and dashed curve can be seen at larger angles. The inclusion of inelastic scattering and
transfer in the data may account for the fact that the experimental points are above the
The elastic scattering data were also compared to calculations using potentials obtained
from a double-folding model. The effective nucleon-nucleon interaction was taken from
Satchler's systematics [|16|] which uses the three-parameter Yukawa form
U NN = -(V + iW)^
where s is the distance between the two nucleons and t = 0.7 fm. The depth of the potentials
was V = W = 60 — 0.3E/A = 57 MeV where E/A is the energy per nucleon of the projectile.
The nuclear density distribution of 208 Pb was constructed using the two-parameter Fermi
form with parameters given in Table 2 of Ref. [TE\. The ground state density distribution
of 17 F was constructed from shell model single particle wave functions as described by
Satchler [|17|] (method B). Calculations using this double-folding potential with no adjustable
parameters are in very good agreement with the data, as shown by the solid curve in Fig. |3|.
Beyond about 45°, the calculation underpredicts the data somewhat, which may be due to
the inclusion of inelastic scattering and neutron transfer reactions in the data. The inelastic
excitation of 17 F to its first excited state, E x = 0.495 MeV and J n = | + , and 208 Pb to its
first 2+ E x = 4.09 MeV, and 3~, E x = 2.61 MeV, states were calculated in the DWBA by
the code Ptolemy. The sum of the inelastic scattering predicted by DWBA and the elastic
scattering predicted by the folding potential is shown by the dotted curve in Fig.  which is in
excellent agreement with the data. Among the three inelastic channels, the excitation cross
section for populating the first excited state of 17 F is calculated to be the largest, followed
by exciting 208 Pb to its first 3~ state. Since the single particle wave function used seems
to give a good account of the ground state density distribution of 17 F, the halo property of
the first excited state in 17 F could be studied if the inelastic scattering could be resolved in
the data. Coupled-channels calculations were performed with these three inelastic channels
using Ptolemy. As can be seen by the dashed curve in Fig. ^ the elastic scattering is
influenced only slightly by the channel couplings. The one-neutron transfer reaction was
calculated by DWBA using Ptolemy. The transfer yield was predicted to be at least two
orders of magnitude less than the elastic scattering and can be ignored, consistent with the
agreement between the data and the dotted curve in Fig. ||.
The angular distribution of Z=8 reaction products used the same normalization as the
elastic scattering. Since this experiment provided no mass identification of the reaction
products, the observed oxygen can originate from nucleon transfer, charge exchange, and
breakup. The one-proton transfer has the largest Q value of all transfer channels lead-
ing to an oxygen isotope, 16 0, as the final product. Finite range DWBA calculations us-
ing the code Ptolemy were performed to predict the cross section angular distribution of
208 Pb( 17 F, 16 O) 209 Bi. Transfer to the lowest six single particle states in 209 Bi was calculated.
The spectroscopic factors were assumed to be 1 which will give upper limits for the cross
sections. The sum of the six cross sections is shown by the dotted curve in Fig. |j. It can be
seen that the one-proton transfer cannot account for the yields of the oxygen angular distri-
bution. Similar results were obtained for calculations using the code FRESCO ||18|| . Although
reactions leading to 18 and 207 Bi in the exit channel have positive Q values, they cannot
occur by simple single-step transfer processes. Therefore, the cross sections are expected to
be smaller than that of one-proton transfer |T9 .
Oxygen-17 can be produced by the charge exchange reaction, 208 Pb( 17 F, 17 O) 208 Bi, with
a Q value of -0.11 MeV. Calculations were performed to estimate the cross section for this
reaction channel. Charge exchange reactions can take place by direct charge exchange, a
combination of inelastic excitation and direct charge exchange, or by successive one-nucleon
exchange. Since the direct charge exchange is orders of magnitude smaller than one-nucleon
transfer ||20|| , calculations were carried out using FRESCO to model the successive one-nucleon
exchange processes [2"T]. Two possible modes, proton stripping followed by neutron pickup
and neutron pickup followed by proton stripping, were considered. Only transfer between
ground states was calculated. The charge exchange cross section is calculated to be 2 orders
of magnitude smaller than that of one-proton transfer calculated by DWBA. Measurements
of 28 Si( 18 0, 18 F) 28 Al show that the charge exchange cross section is at least an order of
magnitude smaller than that of one-nucleon transfer |22| , consistent with the results of our
calculations. Since DWBA calculations predict that the one-proton transfer cross sections
are much smaller than the measured cross sections, it is safe to assume that charge exchange
can be ignored.
The measurement is inclusive, so products from two breakup processes, diffraction and
stripping, can contribute to the data @. In diffraction dissociation, the projectile breaks
up, leaving the valence nucleon in the continuum and the core intact. The final state of the
reaction consists of the valence nucleon, the core of the projectile and the target nucleus in
its ground state. This is the process that our previous coincidence experiment measured || .
The stripping breakup depends on the core-target and nucleon-target absorption potentials.
In a loosely bound nuclear system, if the separation energy (Sn) is much less than the
kinetic energy per nucleon, Sn << E/A, the valence nucleon and the core can be treated
approximately as independent particles p3fl . The effects of nucleon-target and core-target
interactions become noticeable if the interactions are strong.
Semiclassical calculations of breakup similar to those in Ref. |2| were performed to inves-
tigate these processes. The wave function of the projectile after interacting with the target
is described by the ground state wave function of the projectile and the profile functions of
the proton and 16 core. The interaction between the target nucleus and the constituents of
the projectile was obtained from Ref. . The 16 0-target optical potential was calculated
in a single-folding model based on the CH89 optical model potential ||24|| . The breakup
probability as a function of the impact parameter was calculated and converted to an angu-
lar distribution assuming pure Coulomb scattering. The calculated angular distribution was
converted from the center of mass of the reaction to the laboratory frame using the Jacobian
for elastic scattering. Because the reaction energy is high, the uncertainty introduced by
this approximation is smaller than the angular resolution of the DSSD.
Figure f| presents the comparison of the experimental oxygen cross section data with
model calculations. The long-dashed curve is the prediction for stripping breakup while the
short-dashed curve is for diffraction breakup. Apparently, stripping breakup is the domi-
nant reaction in the measured angular range. The solid curve shows the sum of diffraction
and stripping. It overpredicts the measured cross sections slightly; however, the data do
not extend far enough forward for a good comparison. It should be pointed out that the
calculations employed here did not consider the recoil of the 16 0. In addition, excitation of
the 16 and 208 Pb in the final state was ignored. Measurements of the breakup of 17 C by
197 Au show that core excitation is important for nuclear breakup pSfl , but very small for
Coulomb breakup pTJ. In our case, the measurement was performed near the grazing angle
where the nuclear breakup should be significant. Therefore, the excitation of the core and
target nuclei should be considered. Furthermore, the stripping and diffraction breakup were
calculated separately. A more complete theoretical treatment of this subject is underway
and will be published elsewhere ||27|| .
Diffraction breakup of 17 F was measured previously in our coincidence experiment ||. A
first-order perturbation calculation overpredicted the measured cross section by a factor of
4. The present work shows the importance of stripping breakup resulting from the nucleon-
target interaction. The discrepancy in the coincidence experiment can be accounted for by
including the core absorption by the target nucleus which was not considered in the previous
calculations. As shown in Fig. , the data agree with the calculations taking into account
the core-target interaction (short-dashed curve). The calculation is also consistent with
predictions made by the CDCC calculation [|l(]] shown by the dash-dotted curve. The CDCC
calculation takes into account of higher order effects, continuum-continuum couplings, and
full three-body kinematics to produce results in the laboratory frame |28 .
It is shown in Ref. [Q] that the breakup of n Be (Sn = 0.5 MeV) by 208 Pb is dominated by
stripping at 800 MeV/nucleon. At 40 MeV/nucleon, the stripping and diffraction breakup
cross sections become similar 0. In the breakup of 8 B at energies below the Coulomb
barrier, the stripping and diffraction breakup cross sections are also similar ||. In this
work, it is found that the stripping breakup cross section of 10 MeV/nucleon 17 F is almost
twice as large as that of the diffraction breakup.
In summary, the elastic scattering and breakup of 17 F was measured on a 208 Pb target.
The elastic scattering data were fitted with an optical model using a Woods-Saxon potential.
The potential parameters are very similar to those obtained from 16 O+ 208 Pb elastic scatter-
ing. The potential generated from a double-folding model using Satchler's systematics also
reproduced the elastic scattering data. The dominant contribution to the measured angular
distribution of oxygen nuclei in the exit channel was found to be the one-proton stripping
reaction resulting in 16 0. This demonstrates the importance of the proton-target interaction
in the breakup of 17 F on 208 Pb. Based on this finding, calculations of diffraction breakup
considering core absorption were carried out. The new calculations agree with our previous
We would like to thank J. B. Ball, D. J. Dean, J. J. Kolata, F. M. Nunes, G. R. Satchler,
and C. Y. Wong for informative discussions. We are specially grateful to N. Keeley for the
charge exchange calculations. The experimental measurements would not have been possible
without the hard work of the HRIBF staff. Research at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is
supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-
Battelle, LLC. The ORISE is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract
number DE-AC05-00OR22750. One of us (H.E.) was supported by the U.S. Department of
Energy, Nuclear Physics Division, under Contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38.
R. Anne et al, Phys. Lett. B 304, 55 (1993).
K. Hencken, G. F. Bertsch, and H. Esbensen, Phys. Rev. C 54, 3043 (1996).
F. Barranco, E. Vigezzi, and R. A. Broglia, Z. Phys. A 356, 45 (1996).
A. Navin et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5089 (1998).
R. Morlock et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3837 (1997).
C. Signorini, J. Phys. G 23, 1235 (1997), and references therein.
K. E. Rehm et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3341 (1998).
J. F. Liang et al, Phys. Lett. B 491, 23 (2000).
V. Guimaraes et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1862 (2000).
F. M. Nunes and I. J. Thompson, Phys. Rev. C 59, 2652 (1999).
H. Esbensen and G. F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. C 59, 3240 (1999).
R. F. Welton et al, Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 159, 116 (1999).
M. H. Macfarlane and S. C. Pieper, Report No. ANL- 76-11 Rev. 1, 1978 (unpublished).
J. B. Ball et al, Nucl. Phys. A252, 208 (1975).
D. G. Kovar et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1075 (1973).
G. R. Satchler, Nucl. Phys. A579, 241 (1994).
G. R. Satchler, Nucl. Phys. A329, 233 (1979).
I. J. Thompson, Comput. Phys. Rep. 7, 167 (1988).
D. G. Kovar in Proceedings of the International Conference on Reactions between Com-
plex Nuclei, edited by R. C. Robinson, F. K. McGowan, J. B. Ball, J. H. Hamilton
(North-Holland- American Elsevier 1974).
H. H. Duhm et al, Phys. Lett. B 48, 1 (1974).
N. Keeley, private communication.
B. T. Kim et al, Phys. Rev. C 20, 1396 (1979).
K. Yabana, Y. Ogawa, and Y. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. A539, 295 (1992).
R. L. Varner et al, Phys. Rep. 201, 57 (1991).
V. Maddalena and R. Shyam, Phys. Rev. C 63, 051601(R) (2001).
R. Shyam and P. Danielewicz, Phys. Rev. C 63, 054608 (2001).
H. Esbensen, to be published.
J. A. Tostevin, F. M. Nunes, and I. J. Thompson, Phys. Rev. C 63, 024617 (2001).
r = ri
3i — Sii
TABLE I. Optical model potential parameters obtained from fitting the 170 MeV 17 F+ 208 Pb
elastic scattering data. The depth of the real and imaginary potentials is shown by V and W,
respectively. The real and imaginary radius parameters are shown by r and r;, respectively. The
real and imaginary diffuseness parameters are shown by a and a;, respectively.
FIG. 1. Histogram of E vs. AE obtained by the SBD-DSSD telescope.
FIG. 2. Angular distribution of the ratio of measured elastic scattering to calculated Rutherford
scattering. The optical potential fit to the data is shown by the dotted curve for parameters SET I,
dash-dotted curve for SET II, and dashed curve for SET III. The dash-dotted curve and dashed
curve are almost indistinguishable.
FIG. 3. Angular distribution of the ratio of measured elastic scattering to calculated Rutherford
scattering. The solid curve is the result of calculations using the optical potential obtained from
a double-folding model. The sum of elastic and inelastic scattering calculations is shown by the
dotted curve. The result of coupled-channels calculations is shown by the dashed curve.
FIG. 4. Angular distribution of oxygen. The long-dashed and short-dashed curves are for strip-
ping and diffraction breakup, respectively. The dotted curve is the result of a one-proton transfer
DWBA calculation. The solid curve represents the sum of stripping and diffraction breakup.
FIG. 5. Data and predictions of diffraction breakup. The long-dashed curve is for the calcu-
lation without considering core absorption and the short-dashed curve includes core absorption.
The CDCC calculation is shown by the dash-dotted curve. The open point is from our previous
dcr ,/ da
~\ — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — |7~i — i — i — i n — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — r
O Q_ Q_ Q_
r— j -h -h Q
J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L