HASSANABADI Yukawa Form Potencial

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 20

Modern Physics Letters A

Vol. 33, No. 21 (2018) 1850120 (20 pages)



c World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0217732318501201
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Heavy-ion fusion reactions by using Yukawa form potential

A. Avar∗,‡ , H. Hassanabadi∗ and S. Hassanabadi†


∗Faculty of Physics, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran
†Physics Department, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
‡afiye.avar@gmail.com
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Received 20 March 2018


Revised 8 May 2018
Accepted 31 May 2018
Published 29 June 2018

Our purpose in this paper is to modify the original proximity potential by universal
function available in the literature. A potential model with Yukawa proximity potential
has been considered according to the modified model fusion reactions of 92 Zr + 12 C,
16 O + 92 Zr, 28 Si + 92 Zr, 16 O + 144 m, 28 Si + 28 Si, 28 Si + 29 Si, 28 Si + 30 Si, 24 Mg + 24 Mg,
24 Mg + 26 Mg and 24 Mg + 28 Si, 26 Mg + 28 Si, 24 Mg + 30 Si, 26 Mg + 30 Si which have been

discussed in detail. The results have a good agreement with the experimental data.

Keywords: Yukawa potential; barrier height; cross-section.

PACS Nos.: 24.10.-i, 25.70.Jj, 25.60.Pj, 25.70.-z

1. Introduction
Nuclear fusion is one of the most promising sources of clean energy. It is important
to know the potential between two colliding nuclei, Coulomb interactions alone can-
not define a fusion barrier. In this direction, approximations have been used for the
corresponding deformed potentials. The nucleus–nucleus potential is the sum of a
short-range attractive nuclear potential VN (r) and a long-range repulsive Coulomb
potential VC (r).1,2 The Coulomb part of the interaction potential is well known,
whereas the nuclear part is not clearly understood and there have been many ef-
forts to provide an accurate and simple from for the nuclear part. A large number
of theoretical and experimental works are studying the fusion of heavy nuclei.3–6
For the calculation of nuclear potential, there are many models at present, such
as double folding model,7–9 the liquid drop model,10–13 different version proxim-
ity potentials14,15 are used for fusion reactions often from proximity potential. By

‡ Corresponding author

1850120-1
A. Avar, H. Hassanabadi & S. Hassanabadi

determining the total potential, the barrier height and position can be calculated,
and then the cross-section fusion can be calculated. Different models depending
on the nucleus–nucleus potential such as Bass potential,16 Proximity potential,17
Wood–Saxon potential,18 CW potential19 and Modified Wood–Saxon potential20
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

are present. Furthermore, changes and modifications have been made to remove
differences between theory and data which contain a better form of surface energy
coefficient, universal function and nuclear radius. In proximity potential model, the
expression of the nuclear potential depends on the shape and geometry of two nu-
clei. The universal function is independent of the shapes of two nuclei and geometry
of nuclear system.21 In this paper, we have tried to modify the universal function
and by selecting this new universal function to form Yukawa in proximity potential
and to calculate nuclear potential, barrier height and position. Further, the modi-
fied model using Yukawa interaction has been presented in Sec. 2. In this section,
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

barrier height, position of barrier and its cross-section have been obtained. Results
and discussions are presented according to the evaluated results of the experiment
in Sec. 3. At the end, the conclusions are provided.

2. The Modified Model of Proximity Potential


The nuclear part of the interaction potential VN (r) between two surfaces is calcu-
lated within the framework of the proximity potential17 as
 
r − C1 − C2
VN (r) = 4π R̄γbφ MeV , (1)
b
in which the mean curvature radius R̄ is
C1 C2
R̄ = . (2)
C1 + C2
Here, Ci denotes the matter radius and is obtained from the following relation22 :
Ni
Ci = ci + ti , (3)
Ai
where ci is the half-density radius of the charge distribution and ti is the neutron
skin of the nucleus. ci can be calculated as22
 
7 b2 49 b4
ci = R00i 1 − 2 − 4 + ··· , i = 1, 2 . (4)
2 R00i 8 R00i
R00i is the nuclear charge radius which is considered in the form of 23,24
fit
1
− 13
R00i = 1.171Ai3 + 1.427Ai fm , i = 1, 2 . (5)
The neutron skin ti used in Eq. (3) is calculated as22
⎡ −1

1
3 ⎣ JIi − 12 c1 Zi Ai 3
⎦,
ti = r0 −1 i = 1, 2 , (6)
2 Q + 9 JA 3 4 i

1850120-2
Heavy-ion fusion reactions by using Yukawa form potential

where r0 = 1.14 fm, the value of nuclear symmetric energy coefficient J =


32.65 MeV and c1 = 3e
2

5r0 = 0.757895 MeV. The neutron skin stiffness coefficient


Q was taken to be 35.4 MeV. The nuclear surface energy coefficient γ in terms of
neutron skin is given as25
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

  2
N −Z
γ = γ0 1 − ks , (7)
A
in which N , Z and A refer to the neutron, proton and total mass of the two
colliding nuclei. γ0 is the surface energy constant and ks is the surface asym-
metry constant.25,26 In this work, these parameters have been considered as
γ0 = 1.460734 MeV/fm2 and
ks = 4.0.27
The universal function φ r−C1b−C2 in Eq. (2) was derived by several authors
in different forms.18,22,28 In this study, universal function can be written as
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com



⎪ −1.7817 + 0.9270ξ + 0.143ξ 2 − 0.09ξ 3 , for ξ ≤ 0.0 ,





⎪ 2
⎨ −1.7817 + 0.9270ξ + 0.01696ξ
⎪ (8a)
3
φ(ξ) = − 0.05148ξ , for 0.0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1.9475 ,





⎪ α1

⎪ α ξ + C + C exp(−α0 ξ) , for ξ ≥ 1.9475 , (8b)

⎩ 2 1 2

where b is the surface width which has been evaluated close to unity. ξ = (r−C1b−C2 )
and constants α1 and α2 can be obtained from the continuity conditions of φEq. (8a)
and φEq. (8b) and α0 is the free parameter obtained from experimental data.

(i) φEq. (8a) (1.9475) = φEq. (8b) (1.9475) ,

(ii) φEq. (8a) (1.9475) = φEq. (8b) (1.9475) .


By using these parameters, a new potential will be constructed. Along with this
Yukawa form potential, the original proximity potential,17 modified form22 and
ProxNew28 will also be used to compare our results.
The total ion–ion interaction potential VT (r) between the two colliding nuclei
with charges Z1 and Z2 is approximated as
Z1 Z2 e2
VT (r) = VN (r) + Vc (r) = VN (r) + . (9)
r
The above form of the Coulomb potential is suitable when two approaching nuclei
are well separated.

3. Result and Discussion


In this section, we focused on numerical evaluations by using modified model of
proximity potential discussed in the previous section to reproduce the experimental
data and examine the efficiency of the new model. The theoretical predictions are

1850120-3
A. Avar, H. Hassanabadi & S. Hassanabadi

(a)
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

(b)

Fig. 1. (a) The nuclear part of the interaction potential, VN (r) vs. r and (b) the total interaction
VT (r) vs. r for the reactions of 12 C + 92 Zr and 26 Mg + 30 Si.

evaluated by fitting the model parameters on the experimental data using the least
root mean square (rms) method:


 N
 (σiexp − σitheo )2

i=1
χ= ,
N

in which experimental cross-section is shown by σ exp , the theoretical prediction of


the cross-section identified by σ theo and N is the number of experimental cross-
section data. In the fitting process, we made the standard deviation χ minimum to
obtain the free parameter.
In Fig. 1(a), we have plotted the nuclear part of the interaction potential VN (r)
versus r and in Fig. 1(b), the total interaction (nuclear + Coulomb) potential VT (r)

1850120-4
Heavy-ion fusion reactions by using Yukawa form potential
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Fig. 2. Comparison of fusion barrier heights VBtheor (MeV) vs. VBexp t (MeV).

is plotted as a function of distance r by the Yukawa form potential for the reactions
of 12 C + 92 Zr and 26 Mg + 30 Si.
By using Yukawa potential, the Coulomb barrier height and position are ob-
tained by using
 
dVT (r)  d2 VT (r) 
 =0 and  ≤ 0.
dr  dr2 
r=RB r=RB

The height and position of the barrier are labeled, respectively, as VB and RB .
We have considered the fusion reactions of 16 O + 92 Zr, 12 C + 92 Zr, 28 Si + 92 Zr,
16
O + 144 Sm, 28 Si + 28 Si, 28 Si + 29 Si, 28 Si + 30 Si, 24 Mg + 24 Mg, 24 Mg + 26 Mg and
24
Mg + 28 Si, 26 Mg + 28 Si, 24 Mg + 30 Si, 26 Mg + 30 Si. In Fig. 2, the theoretical fusion
barrier heights VBtheor (MeV) have been calculated using Yukawa potential. The
experimental values are taken from Refs. 29–32. In Fig. 3, the percentage deviation
and variation between the theoretical and experimental values using Yukawa form
potential and ProxOld, ProxMod and ProxNew are presented. The difference be-
tween the theoretical and experimentally extracted fusion barriers is displayed. It
is clear from the figure that Yukawa form potential gives closer results.
Here, we have considered some fusion reactions and tried to reproduce their
experimental data of cross-section using the theory discussed before. During the
fitting process, the free parameters have been determined so that we have found
the least deviation for each reaction. To make a comparison between the prediction
of our calculation and others, we have listed the deviation of other calculations and
ours in Table 1. The details of each reaction will be mentioned in separate tables.
In Tables 2–14, the deviations of ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew are compared with
our calculation for each reaction. Fortunately, in each case, there is a considerable

1850120-5
A. Avar, H. Hassanabadi & S. Hassanabadi
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Fig. 3. (a) The percentage deviation ΔVB (%) vs. Z1 Z2 and (b) the variation of ΔVB vs. Z1 Z2 .

difference between deviation of our calculation and others. It means that our modi-
fication in the theory was successful. This point can also check the figures in which
the cross-sections of experimental data and theoretical predictions have been plot-
ted in the same figure. It is seen that our predicted data are very closer to the
experimental data than the other theoretical predictions.
The accuracy of Yukawa form potential is tested on fusion probabilities. In
Figs. 4–16, we have displayed the fusion cross-sections σfus (in mb) as a function of
the center-of-mass energy Ecm (MeV) for the reactions of 24 Mg + 28 Si, 26 Mg + 28 Si,
24
Mg + 30 Si, 26 Mg + 30 Si, 24 Mg + 24 Mg, 24 Mg + 26 Mg with the experimental
data taken from Morsad29 which can be seen in Figs. 4–9, 16 O + 92 Zr, 12 C + 92 Zr,
28
Si + 92 Zr with the experimental data taken from Newton30 which are seen

1850120-6
Heavy-ion fusion reactions by using Yukawa form potential

Table 1. Comparison of the prediction of our calculation and others, where we


have listed the deviation of other calculations and ours for some fusion reactions.

Fusion reaction χProxOld χProxMod χProxNew χOur calculation


by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

24 Mg + 28 Si 2.32 2.26 1.08 0.12


26 Mg + 28 Si 1.48 1.56 0.17 0.14
24 Mg + 30 Si 2.47 2.52 1.06 0.28
26 Mg + 30 Si 1.61 1.78 0.15 0.14
24 Mg + 26 Mg 1.39 1.50 0.60 0.10
24 Mg + 24 Mg 0.69 0.72 0.23 0.13
12 C + 92 Zr 1.87 1.87 1.60 0.40
16 O + 92 Zr 2.52 3.11 3.25 0.46
28 Si + 92 Zr 5.30 4.50 3.24 0.31
28 Si + 28 Si 1.33 1.24 0.43 0.24
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

28 Si + 29 Si 1.42 1.37 0.49 0.16


28 Si+ 30 Si 1.41 1.40 0.49 0.15
16 O + 144 Sm 3.38 3.11 2.91 0.88

Table 2. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod,


ProxNew and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of 24 Mg+28 Si.

24 Mg + 28 Si

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

20.9 0.078 0.004 0.004 0.02 0.09


21.4 0.21 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.22
21.8 0.45 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.45
22.3 1.10 0.04 0.04 0.21 1.06
22.8 2.18 0.09 0.10 0.52 2.50
23.2 6.13 0.19 0.21 1.05 4.89
23.7 13.4 0.47 0.50 2.51 11.00
24.1 25.9 0.94 1.00 5.00 20.11
24.6 41.5 2.39 2.37 11.42 39.11
25.1 67.2 5.21 5.31 24.34 67.10
25.5 87.3 9.99 10.03 41.24 94.38
25.9 115.6 18.36 18.20 64.16 124.08
26.4 144 35.82 35.20 99.14 162.44
26.9 186 61.47 60.29 137.73 200.71
27.3 215 86.40 84.89 169.38 230.75
27.8 223 120.43 118.74 208.68 267.31
28.2 253 148.46 146.78 239.50 295.72
28.7 292 183.37 181.81 277.02 330.15
29.2 352 217.56 216.21 313.35 363.43
29.6 381 244.24 243.06 341.56 389.25
30.1 423 276.66 275.72 375.79 420.57

1850120-7
A. Avar, H. Hassanabadi & S. Hassanabadi

Table 3. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, Prox-
New and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of 26 Mg + 28 Si.

26 Mg + 28 Si
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

21.7 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.16


22.2 0.39 0.05 0.05 0.37 0.42
22.6 1.08 0.11 0.11 0.77 0.88
23.0 2 0.23 0.21 1.60 1.85
23.6 5 0.67 0.61 4.71 5.51
23.9 11.8 1.15 1.04 7.96 9.33
24.3 21.9 2.35 2.09 15.53 18.14
24.7 33.5 4.76 4.15 28.56 32.96
25.1 52.6 9.37 8.08 48.38 54.75
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

25.5 79.8 17.70 15.19 74.58 82.58


25.9 107.3 31.27 27.00 105.29 114.27
26.4 129.3 56.42 49.67 146.77 156.22
26.9 170 88.66 79.98 189.06 198.51
27.3 204 117.19 107.60 222.53 231.81
27.7 240 146.60 136.51 255.32 264.37
28.2 264 183.35 173.01 295.18 303.91
28.6 295 212.25 201.86 326.12 334.60
29.1 310 247.48 237.12 363.64 371.79
29.6 348 281.62 271.34 399.91 407.74
30 349 308.15 297.95 428.06 435.63

Table 4. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, Prox-
New and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of 24 Mg + 30 Si.

24 Mg + 30 Si

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

21.1 0.073 0.007 0.008 0.04 0.17


21.5 0.24 0.01 0.015 0.09 0.35
21.9 0.76 0.03 0.03 0.18 0.73
22.4 2.12 0.07 0.07 0.45 1.82
22.8 5.72 0.15 0.14 0.94 3.76
23.2 12.2 0.31 0.29 1.94 7.61
23.7 23 0.76 0.71 4.73 17.47
24.1 41.4 1.57 1.43 9.42 31.63
24.5 62.8 3.18 2.85 18.04 52.49
25 91.2 7.50 6.61 37.04 86.61
25.4 116.1 14.34 12.54 59.73 117.81
25.9 145 29.67 26.01 95.57 158.65
26.3 179 48.41 42.95 127.65 191.44
26.7 198 72.22 65.15 160.88 223.74
27.2 250 106.50 98.09 202.47 263.09
27.6 278 135.54 126.57 235.18 293.65
28.1 307 172.17 162.90 275.04 330.68
28.5 332 201.10 191.78 306.02 359.39

1850120-8
Heavy-ion fusion reactions by using Yukawa form potential

Table 5. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod,


ProxNew and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of
26 Mg + 30 Si.

26 Mg + 30 Si
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

21 0.042 0.009 0.008 0.06 0.07


21.4 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.14
21.8 0.35 0.03 0.03 0.30 0.30
22.2 0.69 0.08 0.06 0.63 0.65
22.7 1.61 0.20 0.17 1.63 1.68
23.2 4.05 0.51 0.42 4.15 4.27
23.6 9.68 1.08 0.87 8.56 8.82
24 19.6 2.27 1.78 16.97 17.47
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

24.3 36 3.91 3.03 27.19 27.96


24.6 49.8 6.67 5.12 41.54 42.59
25.1 69.2 15.49 11.84 74.35 75.83
25.5 99.8 28.31 21.94 106.43 108.13
25.9 128.4 47.40 37.75 141.11 142.90
26.3 161 72.11 59.45 176.63 178.44
26.8 199 108.00 92.75 220.77 222.56
27.2 245 138.47 122.08 255.35 257.10
27.6 289 169.23 152.23 289.09 290.79
28.1 320 207.21 198.84 330.01 331.65
28.5 358 236.89 219.39 361.75 363.34

Table 6. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod,


ProxNew and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of
24 Mg + 26 Mg.

24 Mg + 26 Mg

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

20.32 28 0.82 0.68 4.65 24.45


21.89 120 13.44 10.51 55.83 135.16
21.89 110 13.44 10.51 55.83 135.16
23.46 241 94.35 80.28 191.26 275.97
25.03 363 219.72 202.28 330.66 402.64
26.59 468 335.78 318.06 454.07 513.85
28.16 574 439.93 422.15 564.52 613.35
28.16 559 439.93 422.15 564.52 613.35
29.73 661 533.09 515.28 663.31 702.33
31.30 712 616.90 599.07 752.19 782.39
32.87 820 692.71 674.85 832.58 854.79
32.87 802 692.71 674.85 832.58 854.79

1850120-9
A. Avar, H. Hassanabadi & S. Hassanabadi

Table 7. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod,


ProxNew and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of
24 Mg + 24 Mg.

24
Mg + 24 Mg
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

21 25 1.71 1.60 8.18 21.13


22.5 85 20.87 18.46 68.64 117.36
22.5 80 20.87 18.46 68.64 117.36
24 184 105.65 98.03 194.00 246.61
25.5 303 219.87 211.25 319.17 365.00
27 388 325.82 317.50 431.42 470.47
28 492 390.34 382.27 499.62 534.52
28 538 390.34 382.27 499.62 534.52
29 568 450.42 442.59 563.11 594.15
29 585 450.42 442.59 563.11 594.14
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

30 613 506.50 498.90 622.38 649.79


31 627 558.96 551.57 677.81 701.85
31 704 558.96 551.57 677.81 701.195
32.05 729 610.52 603.34 732.30 753.02
32.08 745 611.94 604.77 733.81 754.43
32.05 784 656.58 649.59 780.98 798.73
34.06 790 700.35 693.54 827.23 842.17
34.8 901 730.81 724.13 859.42 872.40
36.08 870 780.55 774.07 911.98 921.76
36.83 956 807.72 801.35 940.70 946.73
37.6 935 835.21 828.95 969.75 976.00
38.6 961 868.83 826.70 1005.28 1009.36
39.6 1057 900.74 984.75 1039.01 1041.04
40.6 1031 931.09 925.22 1071.07 1071.15
41.60 1000 959.98 954.22 1101.60 1099.82

Table 8. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew
and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of 12 C + 92 Zr.
12
C + 92 Zr

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

28.20 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.48


29.09 1.45 0.05 0.05 0.07 1.25
29.98 2.91 0.17 0.17 0.26 3.24
30.86 13.2 0.62 0.61 0.92 8.18
31.75 38.6 2.27 2.18 3.27 19.85
32.63 83.6 7.92 7.38 10.98 43.33
33.52 136 25.03 22.97 32.61 82.28
34.40 197 61.83 57.22 74.78 132.64
35.30 253 117.03 110.48 133.46 189.74
36.18 308 177.41 170.20 195.58 246.42
37.07 366 238.47 231.21 257.76 302.44
37.95 421 296.82 289.73 317.03 355.76
38.83 476 352.73 345.87 373.79 406.86
40.60 570 457.96 451.57 480.59 503.10
42.38 664 554.95 459.00 579.02 591.82
44.15 731 643.64 638.09 669.03 672.96

1850120-10
Heavy-ion fusion reactions by using Yukawa form potential
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Table 9. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, Prox-
New and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of 16 O + 92 Zr.

16 O + 92 Zr

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

37.35 0.23 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.71


37.77 0.62 0.002 0.003 0.007 1.01
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

38.20 0.79 0.004 0.006 0.01 1.46


38.62 2.22 0.008 0.01 0.02 2.09
39.05 2.41 0.01 0.02 0.04 3.01
39.47 4.62 0.02 0.03 0.08 4.28
39.90 8.7 0.05 0.06 0.15 6.12
40.33 15.2 0.10 0.12 0.30 8.70
40.75 23.1 0.19 0.23 0.55 12.19
41.18 33.8 0.37 0.44 1.03 17.05
41.61 49.2 0.69 0.81 1.93 23.56
42.03 65.7 1.29 1.49 3.52 31.81
42.46 86.2 2.41 2.74 6.42 42.45
42.89 105 4.46 5.00 11.44 55.45
43.31 128 7.98 8.80 19.36 70.38
43.74 151 14.05 15.24 31.48 87.73
44.17 174 23.59 25.19 47.96 106.83
45.02 223 57.47 56.74 90.78 148.20
45.87 270 97.49 100.16 140.26 192.05
46.30 299 121.36 124.21 165.91 214.53
46.73 325 145.67 148.70 191.47 236.97
47.15 347 169.46 172.66 216.18 258.76
47.50 367 189.15 192.51 236.53 276.75
49.20 459 281.67 285.81 331.59 361.42
50.99 543 372.73 377.66 424.96 445.04
52.70 626 453.97 459.60 508.25 519.74
54.40 687 529.67 535.96 585.85 589.37
56.11 754 601.18 608.10 659.17 655.15
57.81 813 688.09 675.58 727.77 716.70
59.52 867 731.53 739.57 792.81 775.05
61.23 912 791.43 799.99 854.22 830.15
62.93 971 847.75 586.81 911.96 881.96

1850120-11
A. Avar, H. Hassanabadi & S. Hassanabadi

Table 10. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, Prox-
New and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of 28 Si + 92 Zr.

28 Si + 92 Zr
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

65.40 0.96 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 1.85


66.16 1.73 0.0001 0.001 0.002 2.86
66.93 4.49 0.0004 0.001 0.007 4.42
67.70 7.21 0.001 0.004 0.02 6.80
68.46 14 0.003 0.01 0.07 10.31
69.23 23.6 0.01 0.03 0.22 15.54
70.00 38.8 0.03 0.11 0.68 23.03
70.76 54.2 0.11 0.33 2.07 33.23
71.58 77.8 0.36 1.10 6.50 47.86
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

72.30 94.9 1.05 3.04 16.04 63.96


73.19 125 3.72 9.89 38.95 87.80
73.83 141 8.73 20.62 61.95 107.20
74.60 170 21.33 41.58 93.17 132.42
75.36 197 42.08 68.55 125.18 158.69
76.13 216 68.91 98.65 157.59 186.12
76.90 252 98.13 129.42 189.56 213.93
78.43 302 156.93 189.75 251.37 269.15
79.20 335 185.96 219.35 281.59 296.58
79.96 365 214.09 248.02 310.85 323.30
80.73 383 242.07 276.52 339.94 349.96
81.50 404 269.52 304.48 368.47 376.18
88.17 603 487.26 526.27 594.78 584.87

Table 11. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, Prox-
Mod, ProxNew and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction
of 28 Si + 28 Si.
28
Si + 28 Si

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

27.9 15 0.71 0.87 5.13 13.19


28.9 63 3.83 4.51 23.90 49.27
29.9 83 18.0 20.18 73.23 112.71
30.9 136 57.83 61.87 142.78 183.80
31.4 161 86.50 91.14 179.01 218.78
31.9 194 117.70 122.79 214.75 252.88
32.4 236 149.60 155.07 249.65 286.01
32.9 238 181.27 187.09 283.61 318.16
33.4 302 212.30 218.46 316.59 349.37
33.9 304 242.54 249.05 348.62 379.67
34.9 369 300.56 307.71 409.94 437.66
35.4 372 326.36 335.82 439.30 465.42

1850120-12
Heavy-ion fusion reactions by using Yukawa form potential

Table 12. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod,
ProxNew and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of 28 Si + 29 Si.

28 Si + 29 Si
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

27.37 11.4 0.38 0.43 3.01 9.99


27.88 21.8 0.92 1.03 7.12 21.64
28.90 76 5.18 5.57 32.74 70.70
29.92 105 24.30 25.16 91.84 141.94
30.93 159 71.72 72.74 165.89 215.05
31.95 222 136.34 137.62 240.52 285.50
32.41 265 166.31 167.80 272.95 315.90
34 346 265.66 267.98 378.58 414.73
35 400 323.83 326.68 440.14 472.30
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

36.02 522 379.87 383.22 499.41 527.72


36.89 554 525.21 428.98 547.37 572.58
38.06 560 482.93 487.22 608.42 629.66
39.07 549 529.97 534.69 658.17 679.19
40.09 609 575.07 580.20 705.88 720.81
40.91 720 609.70 615.15 742.50 755.06
42.13 722 658.73 664.62 794.36 803.55

Table 13. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod,
ProxNew and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of 28 Si + 30 Si.

28 Si + 30 Si

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

27.31 17 0.45 0.47 3.83 14.48


27.83 30 1.11 1.15 9.26 30.58
28.87 83 6.59 6.57 41.82 89.95
29.90 134 30.38 29.54 108.30 165.65
30.93 190 84.51 82.47 186.49 241.11
32.38 266 180.07 177.94 292.82 340.34
33 310 220.26 218.36 335.68 380.16
34.04 377 284.76 283.29 404.11 443.71
35.07 445 344.95 343.92 467.88 502.94
36.11 469 402.27 401.65 528.59 559.32
36.88 548 442.62 442.30 571.33 599.01
37.66 526 481.81 481.77 612.85 637.56
38.69 594 531.15 531.47 665.10 686.09
39.73 665 578.37 579.03 715.12 732.53
49.92 654 629.45 630.48 769.22 782.78
41.80 764 665.36 666.65 807.26 818.10
42.83 822 705.51 707.10 849.79 857.59

1850120-13
A. Avar, H. Hassanabadi & S. Hassanabadi

Table 14. Fusion cross-sections σfus for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, Prox-
New and Yukawa form potential at energies Ecm for the reaction of 16 O + 144 Sm and
calculated standard deviation for each proximity models.

16 O + 144 Sm
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Ecm σexp σProxOld σProxMod σProxNew σOur model


(MeV) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb) (mb)

56.59 0.15 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.94


57.04 0.33 0.003 0.005 0.007 1.27
57.49 0.45 0.006 0.009 0.01 1.70
57.94 1.5 0.01 0.01 0.02 2.29
58.39 2.7 0.02 0.02 0.03 3.07
58.84 5.5 0.03 0.05 0.06 4.11
59.29 10.2 0.06 0.09 0.11 5.50
59.74 17.5 0.11 0.16 0.21 7.32
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

60.19 28.6 0.21 0.29 0.38 9.72


60.64 41.3 0.37 0.52 0.68 12.84
61.09 55.5 0.68 0.93 1.21 16.86
61.54 71.2 1.22 1.66 2.14 21.95
61.99 90.6 2.19 2.92 3.77 28.30
62.44 108 3.87 5.09 6.52 36.09
62.89 131 6.75 8.69 11.04 45.42
63.34 150 11.48 14.44 18.05 56.34
63.79 169 18.80 23.01 28.18 68.85
64.24 184 29.29 34.85 41.65 82.82
64.69 208 43.06 49.87 58.12 98.09
65.59 253 78.38 86.91 97.08 131.73
66.49 295 119.07 128.52 139.56 168.08
67.39 348 161.07 171.08 182.53 205.72
68.29 383 202.73 213.21 224.88 243.71
70.08 469 282.94 294.25 306.26 318.25
71.88 552 359.68 371.78 384.08 390.44
76.38 700 535.74 549.65 562.61 556.82
80.88 876 692.22 707.73 721.28 704.84
89.88 1079 958.17 976.39 990.94 956.41

Fig. 4. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 24 Mg + 28 Si reaction.

1850120-14
Heavy-ion fusion reactions by using Yukawa form potential
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Fig. 5. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 26 Mg + 28 Si reaction.
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Fig. 6. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 24 Mg + 30 Si reaction.

Fig. 7. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 26 Mg + 30 Si reaction.

1850120-15
A. Avar, H. Hassanabadi & S. Hassanabadi
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Fig. 8. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 24 Mg + 26 Mg reaction.
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Fig. 9. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 24 Mg + 24 Mg reaction.

Fig. 10. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 12 C + 92 Zr reaction.

1850120-16
Heavy-ion fusion reactions by using Yukawa form potential
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Fig. 11. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 16 O + 92 Zr reaction.
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Fig. 12. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 28 Si + 92 Zr reaction.

Fig. 13. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 28 Si + 28 Si reaction.

1850120-17
A. Avar, H. Hassanabadi & S. Hassanabadi
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

Fig. 14. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 28 Si + 29 Si reaction.
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Fig. 15. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 28 Si + 30 Si reaction.

Fig. 16. σfus (mb) vs. Ecm (MeV) for proximity models, ProxOld, ProxMod, ProxNew, Yukawa
form potential for 16 O + 144 Sm reaction.

1850120-18
Heavy-ion fusion reactions by using Yukawa form potential

in Figs. 10–12, 28 Si + 28 Si, 28 Si + 29 Si, 28 Si + 30 Si with the experimental data taken


from Gary31 which are depicted in Figs. 13–15 and 16 O + 144 Sm with the experi-
mental data taken from Leigh32 are plotted in Fig. 16. The fusion cross-sections are
calculated using the well-known Wong model.33 It is clearly visible from the figure
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

that Yukawa form potential is in good agreement with the experimental data.

4. Conclusions
Among different potential models to describe fusion reaction, we modified the origi-
nal proximity potential. With the aim of Yukawa potential, we have made our mod-
ified potential model. Then using the new potential model, we discussed the barrier
height, position of barrier and cross-sections of the fusions reactions 16 O + 92 Zr,
12
C + 92 Zr, 28 Si + 92 Zr , 24 Mg + 28 Si, 26 Mg + 28 Si, 24 Mg + 30 Si, 26 Mg + 30 Si,
24
Mg + 24 Mg, 24 Mg + 26 Mg, 16 O + 144 Sm and 28 Si + 28 Si, 28 Si + 29 Si, 28 Si + 30 Si
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

in detail. Our results were compared with the experimental data which are in good
agreement with the experimental data. In other words, the comparison emphasized
that our modified potential model was successful in the expression of experimental
data.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank the referee for a thorough reading of our manuscript and for
constructive suggestion.

References
1. L. C. Chamon, G. P. A. Nobre, D. Pereira, C. P. Silva and E. S. Rossi, Jr., Braz. J.
Phys. 35, 3B (2005).
2. K. S. Jassim, F. A. Mageed and G. S. Jassim, Int. J. Sci. Res. ISSN (Online): 2319-
7064 (2012).
3. J. M. B. Shorto et al., Phys. Rev. C 81, 044601 (2010).
4. I. Dutt and R. K. Puri, Phys. Rev. C 81, 044615 (2010).
5. I. Dutt and R. K. Puri, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064609 (2010).
6. I. Dutt and R. Bansal, Chinese Phys. Lett. 27, 112402 (2010).
7. G. L. Zhang, X. Y. Le and H. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 80, 064325 (2009).
8. D. N. Basu, Phys. Lett. B 566, 90 (2003).
9. C. Xu and Z. Z. Ren, Nucl. Phys. A 753, 174 (2005).
10. G. Royer and B. Remaud, Nucl. Phys. A 444, 477 (1985).
11. G. Royer, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 12, 623 (1986).
12. G. Royer and J. Gaudillot, Phys. Rev. C 84, 044602 (2011).
13. R. Moustabchir and G. Royer, Nucl. Phys. A 683, 266 (2001).
14. Y. J. Yao et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 51, Article 122 (2015).
15. G. L. Zhang et al., Nucl. Phys. A 951, 86 (2016).
16. R. Bass, Nuclear Reactions with Heavy Ions, Chap. 7.4 (Springer-Verleg, 1980),
pp. 318–340.
17. J. Blocki et al., Ann. Phys. 105, 427 (1977).
18. R. A. Broglia and A. Winther, Heavy Ion Physics, Part I and Part II (Addison-Wesley,
1991).

1850120-19
A. Avar, H. Hassanabadi & S. Hassanabadi

19. P. R. Christensen and A. Winther, Phys. Lett. B 65, 19 (1976).


20. N. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. C 77, 014603 (2008).
21. G. L. Zhang and M. Pan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 25, 1650082 (2016).
22. W. D. Myers and W. J. Świa̧tecki, Phys. Rev. C 62, 044610 (2000).
by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO CEARA on 07/11/18. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

23. R. Bass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 265 (1977).


24. I. Angeli, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tables 87, 185 (2004); G. Fricke et al., ibid. 60, 177
(1995); E. G. Nadjakov, K. P. Marinova and Y. P. Gangrsky, ibid. 56, 133 (1994).
25. W. D. Myers and W. J. Świa̧tecki, Nucl. Phys. 81, 1 (1966).
26. I. Dutt and R. K. Puri, Phys. Rev. C 81, 047601 (2010); I. Dutt and R. Bansal,
Chinese Phys. Lett. 27, 112402 (2010).
27. P. Möller and J. R. Nix, Nucl. Phys. A 272, 502 (1976).
28. I. Dutt, Pramana-J. Phys. 76, 921 (2011).
29. A. Morsad, J. J. Kolata, R. J. Tighe, X. J. Kong, E. F. Aguilera and J. J. Vega, Phys.
Rev. C 41, 988 (1990).
30. J. O. Newton et al., Phys. Rev. C 64, 064608 (2001).
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

31. S. Gary and C. Volant, Phys. Rev. C 25, 1877 (1982).


32. J. R. Leigh et al., Phys. Rev. C 52, 3151 (1995).
33. C. Y. Wong, Phys. Lett. B 42, 186 (1972); Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 76 (1973).

1850120-20

You might also like