Projectile Fragmentation of $^{86}$Kr at 64 MeV/nucleon

Projectile Fragmentation of 86 Kr at 64 MeV/nucleon

M. Mocko, ll2 '0M. B. Tsang, 1 ' 2 Z. Y. Sun, 3 N. Aoi, 4 J. Cook, 1 - 2 F. Delaunay, 1
M. A. Famiano, 1 H. Hui, 1 N. Imai, 4 H. Iwasaki, 5 W. G. Lynch, 1 ' 2
T. Motobayashi, 4 M. Niikura, 6 T. Onishi, 5 A. M. Rogers, 1 ' 2 H. Sakurai, 5
A. Stolz, 1 H. Suzuki, 5 E. Takeshita, 7 S. Takeuchi, 4 and M. S. Wallace 1 ' 2

1 National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

2 Department of Physics & Astronomy, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
3 Institute of Modern Physics, CAS, Lanzhou 730000, China
^RIKEN Nishina Center, 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198 Japan
5 Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
6 Center for Nuclear Study, University of Tokyo (CNS), RIKEN
campus, 2-1, Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan
7 Rikkyo University, 3 Nishi-Ikebukuro, Toshima, Tokyo 171, Japan

(Dated: February 5, 2008)

1

Abstract

We measured fragmentation cross sections produced using the primary beam of 86 Kr at 64
MeV/nucleon on 9 Be and 181 Ta targets. The cross sections were obtained by integrating the
momentum distributions of isotopes with 25 < Z < 36 measured using the RIPS fragment separator
at RIKEN. The cross-section ratios obtained with the 181 Ta and 9 Be targets depend on the fragment
masses, contrary to the simple geometrical models. We compared the extracted cross sections to
EPAX; an empirical parameterization of fragmentation cross sections. Predictions from current
EPAX parameterization severely overestimate the production cross sections of very neutron-rich
isotopes. Attempts to obtain another set of EPAX parameters specific to the reaction studied here,
to extrapolate the neutron-rich nuclei more accurately have not been very successful, suggesting
that accurate predictions of production cross sections of nuclei far from the valley of stability
require information of nuclear properties which are not present in EPAX.

PACS numbers: 25.70.Mn

Keywords: projectile fragmentation, fragmentation reactions, fragment separator, fragmentation production
cross section

* Corresponding author: mmocko@lanl.gov

I. INTRODUCTION

With recent developments in heavy-ion accelerators and rare isotope beam production
many new surprising phenomena have been observed in unstable nuclei, such as neutron
halo PQ , neutron and proton skins of nuclei far from stability (2J E] , and large deformations
of neutron-rich isotopes [I]. In the planning and development of experiments with rare
isotope beams, the EPAX code is used extensively in the current radioactive ion beam
facilities. EPAX is an empirical parameterization of fragmentation cross sections relying on
data mainly from reactions at incident energy greater than 200 MeV/nucleon. Using EPAX
at low incident energy assumes the validity of limiting fragmentation, when the production
cross sections do not depend on incident energy or target. It is, therefore, very important
to verify EPAX predictions of production of rare isotopes at extreme proton and neutron
compositions, especially for facilities that produce radioactive ion beams at incident energies
lower than 200 MeV/nucleon.

The present study compares fragment production cross sections from the projectile frag-
mentation of 86 Kr at 64 MeV/nucleon to EPAX, an empirical parameterization of fragmen-
tation cross sections. 86 Kr is chosen as it is one of the most neutron-rich naturally occurring
stable isotopes. Due to its noble gas chemical properties and that it can be easily ionized in
an ion source, projectile fragmentation of 86 Kr is widely used to produce neutron-rich rare
isotopes.

II. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

The fragmentation experiments were carried out at RIKEN Accelerator Research Facility
[5]. A primary beam of 86 Kr with incident energy of 64 MeV/nucleon was produced by
injecting 86 Kr ions into the K540 Ring Cyclotron using the LINAC injector. The layout
of the LINAC, K540 Ring Cyclotron, and the experimental areas in the RIKEN facility
is shown in Fig. [TJ Two reaction targets, 96 mg/cm 2 9 Be and 156 mg/cm 2 181 Ta foils,
were used. The target thicknesses were chosen such that the energy losses of the primary
beam in the targets were similar thus data could be taken with both targets using the same
magnetic setting. Minimizing the number of settings required in the experiments results in
better utilization of the primary beam since changing the magnetic setting of the RIKEN

3

Projectile Fragment Separator (RIPS) takes much longer than changing the targets.

Projectile-like fragments produced in interactions of the primary beam with the target
nuclei were collected and identified using the RIPS separator [6J located in experimental
areas D and E6 as shown in Fig. [TJ The schematic layout of RIPS is shown in Fig. [2}
The RIPS fragment separator consists of two 45° dipole magnets (Dl, D2), and twelve
quadrupoles (Q1-Q12). The first section gives a dispersive focus at the Fl focal plane al-
lowing measurement of the magnetic rigidity of the particles. The second stage compensates
the dispersion of the first section and gives a double achromatic focus at the F2 focal plane.
The quadrupole triplet of the last section produces the third focus at the F3 focal plane,
where the main part of the particle identification setup was installed.

All measurements were performed using the RIPS fragment separator in a narrow mo-
mentum acceptance mode. The momentum opening, dp/p, was limited to 0.2% using a slit
in the dispersive image of the separator, Fl (see the top right oval in Fig. [2j). In this config-
uration, the measured particles have trajectories close to the axis of the fragment separator
simplifying the transmission calculations. Furthermore, a narrow momentum acceptance al-
lows measuring the fragment cross sections in the magnetic rigidity between primary beam
charge states. The disadvantage is that in order to measure the momentum distributions
over a wide range of fragmentation products, we had to take measurements at many dif-
ferent magnetic settings. For reactions with the 9 Be target we covered 1.79-2.93 Tm in
45 steps and for 181 Ta target we scanned the region of 1.79-2.35 Tm in 29 settings. To
avoid excessive dead-time in the data acquisition the primary beam intensity was optimized
at each magnetic rigidity such that the counting rate of the first silicon PIN detector was
approximately 900-1000 counts per second.

Fragments with mass number, A, proton number, Z, and charge state, Q, measured in
our study (25 < Z < 36) were not fully stripped of electrons. However, only the charge state
distributions of the 86 Kr primary beam were measured. The measurement was done at the
Fl dispersion plane where different charge states of one ion traveling at the same velocity
are spatially separated [7] . The measured primary charge state probability distributions for
9 Be (filled circles) and 181 Ta (filled squares) targets are plotted in Fig. [3] as a function of
the number of unstripped electrons, Z — Q. Predictions from the charge state distribution
code GLOBAL [5j, as implemented in LISE++ [5], are shown as solid and dotted lines for
9 Be and 181 Ta targets. The predictions tend to decrease more steeply for the 86 Kr+ 9 Be

4

reactions. The overall prediction is quite good considering the fact that the GLOBAL code
was developed for heavier projectiles (Z > 53) at higher energies (E > 100 MeV/nucleon)
[8]. The measured charge state distribution of the 86 Kr primary beam showed that almost
10% of the intensity is in the 86 Kr 35+ charge state after passing through the 9 Be target
(Fig. [3]). The fraction is much larger in the case of 181 Ta target because the charge state
distribution is broader.

To properly identify all fragments and their charge states in our analysis, the general Bp-
ToF-AE-TKE [TU] particle identification technique was used on an event-by-event basis.
The magnetic rigidity, Bp, was given by the magnetic setting of the RIPS fragment separator.
The time of flight, ToF, was measured between F2 and F3 plastic scintillators (see Fig. [2])
separated by a flight path of 6 m. The energy loss, AE, was measured with a 350 /im-thick
silicon PIN detector. The total kinetic energy, TKE, was reconstructed by measuring the
energy deposited by the particles in a stack of 5 silicon PIN detectors (labeled AE, El, E2,
E3, EA in Fig. g).

A typical raw experimental particle identification (PID) plot, AE versus ToF, is shown
in the left panel of Fig. |4} The identification of individual groups of events was done by
recognizing typical features of the PID spectrum and locating a hole corresponding to the
particle- unbound 8 Be nucleus [llj. The spectrum for the 86 Kr+ 9 Be reaction at Bp = 2.07
Tm is shown in Fig. [4] and shows 3 gates around elements with Z = 28, 31, and 34. The
right panels display projections of events from these gates to charge state, Q, versus ratio
A/Q plane. The fully stripped (Z — Q = 0) and hydrogen-like (Z — Q — 1) charge states
for all 3 selected elements are very well separated. Similar projections were constructed for
fragments with 25 < Z < 36 at all magnetic rigidity settings in our analysis.

Each experimental run took data for one Bp setting of the RIPS fragment separator. The
number of events, N(A, Z, Q), for a fragment with mass number, A, proton number, Z, and
charge state, Q, were extracted from the calibrated PID spectra similar to the one in Fig.
[4j The differential cross sections, da /dp, were calculated taking into account the number
of beam particles, Nb, number of target nuclei per square centimeter, Nt, live-time ratio,
tlive, and the transmission efficiency through the RIPS fragment separator, e,

da
dp

(A,Z,Q)

N(A,Z,Q) 1
N T N B ApT LIVE e '

(1)

where Ap denotes the momentum opening.

5

The transmission efficiency correction, e, is assumed to be factorized into two independent
components: momentum corrections and angular corrections. Momentum corrections take
into account the loss of fragments caused by the momentum slit at the Fl focal plane. This
effect is independent of fragment species and the Bp setting. A correction value of 98 ± 2%
was obtained from simulations using a universal Monte Carlo ion optics code MOCADI
|12j . The angular corrections account for a finite angular acceptance of the RIPS fragment
separator in the perpendicular (transverse) plane with respect to the beam direction. Since
the current experiment does not measure the momentum in the transverse direction, we
modeled the width of the momentum distribution of a fragment with a mass number, A, by
a Gaussian distribution with variance, a±, prescribed in ref. [15] :

2 2 A(A P -A) , 2 A(A-l)

a±=tT ° A P -1 +aD A P (A P -iy (2)

where Ap is the mass number of the projectile and od is the orbital dispersion. The first term
in Eq. (|2| comes from the Goldhaber model [H] , which describes the width of longitudinal
momentum distribution of fragments produced at high projectile energies. The value of <To
was determined by fitting the experimental longitudinal distributions. Values of 147 ± 5
and 153 ± 5 MeV/c were obtained for reactions with 9 Be and 181 Ta targets, respectively.
The second term in Eq. ^ takes into account the deflection of the projectile by the target
nucleus [15j and is significant only for fragments with masses close to the projectile and
at low and intermediate beam energies. We estimated the <td parameter to be 225 ± 25
MeV/c for both investigated reactions, based on the 16 fragmentation data measured at 90
MeV/nucleon [13]. Portions of the Gaussian angular distributions transmitted through the
RIPS fragment separator define the angular transmission and were calculated using LISE++
[9] and verified with MOCADI simulations [7\. The transmission correction, e, consisting of
the product of the angular and momentum corrections is plotted in Fig. [5] for the 86 Kr+ 9 Be
reaction. The final transmission correction, e, varies from 0.98 for fragments close to the
projectile to approximately 0.25 for the lightest fragments in our analysis (A « 50). The
transmission correction for the 86 Kr+ 181 Ta reaction is very similar to the one shown in Fig.

El

In our fragmentation measurements the beam intensity varied between 10 6 and 10 11
pps. The beam intensity was monitored by a telescope located at approximately 60° with
respect to the beam direction and approximately 25 cm from the target. The top left oval

6

in Fig. [2] shows a schematic drawing of the monitor (MOMOTA) at the target position.
The monitor consists of three plastic scintillators and detects the light particles produced in
nuclear reactions in the production target. Only triple coincidence rates were considered as
valid signals. Since the production of light particles depends on the reaction of beam and
target nuclei, the monitor rates must be calibrated to the beam intensity for each reaction
system studied. Unfortunately we could not use the Faraday Cup (FC) to calibrate the
beam intensity. The FC was located approximately 5 cm downstream from the target
position and the monitor reading was affected by the particles scattered off the FC during
the primary beam intensity calibration. To obtain an absolute calibration of the monitor,
direct rates of 86 Kr 33+ and 86 Kr 31+ particles for the 9 Be and 181 Ta targets, respectively, were
measured at the F2 focal plane using the plastic scintillator. The statistical uncertainties of
these measurements were less than 5%. From Fig. [3J probabilities of 86 Kr 33+ and 86 Kr 31+
charge states are found to be 0.0028% and 0.016%, respectively. This allowed us to calculate
the primary beam intensity for these two measurements, thus establishing absolute beam
intensity calibration points for the 9 Be and 181 Ta targets. The linearity (better than 1%) in
the beam intensity range used in our experiments for the monitor telescope was confirmed
by measuring the fragment flux with different Fl slit openings.

III. MOMENTUM DISTRIBUTIONS

The fragment momentum distributions were obtained by plotting individual differential
cross sections as a function of measured momentum (calculated from the magnetic rigidity,
Bp) for all fragments and their charge states. The momentum distributions obtained from
projectile fragmentation at intermediate energy are asymmetric [TJ [10]. Fig. [6] displays a
typical momentum distribution in our analysis for 64 Zn 30+ . The dashed curve represents a
fit with a single Gaussian function. As the distributions have low momentum tails, we fit
the data with the following function [16] :

da _ I S - exp (-(p - p ) 2 /(2a 2 L )) for p < p ,

d P [ S ■ exp (-(p - p )7( 2o i)) for p > p ,
where S is the normalization factor, po, is the peak position of the distribution, and ol
and ctr are widths of "left" and "right" halves of two Gaussian distributions used to fit
the momentum distributions. The solid curves in Fig. [6] are the best fits obtained by

7

minimization of \ 2 using Eq. For most fragments we observe very good agreement

between the data and the fit over three orders of magnitude.

IV. CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS

The cross section of a fragment in a given charge state was determined by integrating the
area of its momentum distribution. For fragments with well-measured momentum distribu-
tions, such as the one shown in Fig. [6j the cross sections were extracted from fitting the
momentum distributions using Eq. However, approximately 40% of the measured frag-
ments had incomplete momentum distributions that may consist of only a few points near
the top of the peak. For these fragments, we used the systematics of p , <tl, and a R obtained
from fragments with complete momentum distributions to calculate the cross sections with
function in Eq. (J3]).

At 64 MeV/nucleon, the fragment yield is distributed over different charge states. The
total fragmentation cross sections are obtained by summing these contributions. For the
86 Kr+ 9 Be reaction system we analyzed fully stripped fragments with Z — Q = charge states
and corrected the final fragment cross sections using charge state distributions predicted by
GLOBAL. The calculated corrections vary between 1-9% for 25 < Z < 36 isotopes. For
the 86 Kr+ 181 Ta reaction we sum the cross sections of the 3 most abundant charge states
(Z — Q — 0, 1, 2) to harvest most of the cross section. Corrections for fragment cross
sections using GLOBAL vary between 0.1-3% for 25 < Z < 36 isotopes.

For fragments with complete momentum distributions, uncertainties in the fragmentation
cross sections of 7-12%, were calculated based on the statistical uncertainty, the beam inten-
sity calibration (5%), the errors from the fitting procedure and the transmission uncertainty
(2-8%). For fragments measured with incomplete momentum distributions, additional sys-
tematic errors stemming from the extrapolation of the parameters of po, <Jl, and <Jr were
included. An overall view of the fragment cross sections for the 86 Kr+ 9 Be reaction system in
the style of the nuclear chart, is shown in Fig. [7} The range of the measured cross sections
spans over 9 orders of magnitude, from 15 ± 7 pb ( 79 Cu) to 38 ± 4 mb ( 82 Kr).

8

V. CROSS-SECTION RESULTS

Fig. [8] shows the cross sections for fragments extracted from the 86 Kr+ 181 Ta analysis as
closed circles. Each panel represents isotope cross-section data for one element (25 < Z <
36), plotted as a function of neutron excess, N — Z, of each isotope. For the 86 Kr+ 181 Ta
reaction system, interference from the many charge states of the beam limits the span of
measured fragments for each element. Our requirement, that the three most abundant charge
states should have quantifiable counts above background in the analysis further reduced the
number of data points to 70 isotopes for the 86 Kr+ 181 Ta system. In contrast, cross sections
for 180 isotopes were obtained for the 86 Kr+ 9 Be system as shown in Fig. [9j

For comparison, fragment cross sections for the 86 Kr+ 9 Be reactions are plotted as open
squares in Fig. |HJ More light fragments are produced in the projectile fragmentation of the
86 Kr nuclei with 181 Ta than 9 Be targets. This increase is seen clearly in Fig. [To] where the
ratios of isotope yields from the two different targets, a^A, Z)/a-Q e {A, Z), are plotted as
a function of fragment mass number, A, and <7T a (A Z) and <7B e (A Z) denote cross sections
of an isotope (A, Z) measured with 181 Ta and 9 Be targets, respectively. For clarity of the
presentation, only the target isotope ratios with relative errors smaller than 25% are shown.
Elements with odd and even Zs are represented by open and closed symbols, respectively,
with the open circles starting at A « 52 representing the Mn isotopes and the solid triangles
near A « 80 denoting the Kr isotopes. Within an element (data points with same symbol),
there seems to be an increase in the fragment cross sections from reactions with Ta targets
for both very neutron-rich and proton-rich isotopes. The trend is not as clear here due
to the limited range of isotopes measured in the 86 Kr+ 181 Ta reactions. (Similar trends
have been observed in the projectile fragmentation of 40 ' 48 Ca and 58 > 64 Ni isotopes [7].) The
experimental target isotope ratios, cr^^A, Z)/a-Q e {A 1 Z), exhibit an overall increase with

decreasing fragment mass in Fig. 10 For fragments lighter than A « 50, the enhancement
exceeds a factor of 10. Such dependence is not expected in the limiting fragmentation
model. In the geometrical limit the cross sections are proportional to the sum of nuclear
radii squared [TF] , so the target isotope ratios are given by:

a Ta (A, Z) _ K 3 + 4C)

2

2.4, (4)
where A Kr = 86, v4 Ta = 181, and A Bc = 9. This limit is shown as a dotted line in the figure.

In the EPAX formula the fragmentation cross section is proportional to the sum of nuclear
radii, which stems from the assumption that fragmentation is dominated by peripheral
events:

<n>(A, Z) (4 7 r 3 + < 3 ~ 2-38)

a Bc (A,Z) (4/ 3 + A)H - 2.38) " U
This EPAX limit is shown as a dashed line in the figure. The cross-section enhancement
trends suggest that light, rare isotopes may be produced more abundantly using a heavy
target such as 181 Ta. However, one must keep in mind the large difference in atomic mass of
the two target materials (approximately a factor of 20). To compensate for the low atomic
density in Ta or similar targets, thick foils must be used, and effects such as the broad charge
state distribution for heavy targets, the energy loss, and angular straggling must be taken
into account. However, if the rising trend of the target isotope ratios for the 86 Kr primary
beam continues for light isotopes, heavy targets such as Ta may be a better choice for the
production of light neutron-rich and proton-rich isotopes close to the drip lines [18J.

For both investigated systems, we also observed differences between the EPAX calculated
and observed maxima of the isotopic distribution for elements close to the projectile (Ge-
Kr). A similar systematic discrepancy between the intermediate energy fragmentation data
and EPAX parameterization has been reported before [7J [HJ]. The Fermi spheres of the
target and projectile nuclei have larger overlap at intermediate energies than at relativistic
energies. There may be increasing contributions to the prefragments with charge numbers
greater than that of the projectile from the transfer-type reactions. Subsequent decay of
these primary fragments feeds the less neutron-rich isotopes close to the projectile.

The parameters used in EPAX were obtained by fitting several data sets, including the
fragmentation data of 86 Kr+ 9 Be at 500 MeV/nucleon [20]. For comparison, the latter set
of data was plotted as open triangles in Fig. |9j and our data are plotted as closed squares.
There are considerable scatters in the Weber et al. data (especially for Ga to Se elements).
The cross sections at the peak of the isotopic distributions for Co to Zn elements agree rather
well. However, the 500-MeV/nucleon isotope distributions are wider. These may account for
the larger widths from the calculated isotope distributions by EPAX. It has been known that
EPAX over-predicts the production of very neutron-rich fragments [Til [16]. The top panel

of Fig. 11 shows the ratio of the measured cross sections divided by the EPAX predictions
as a function of the neutron number from the neutron stability line, Np. For convenience,

10

we adopt the same stability line for a chain of isobars, A, as used in EPAX |21j:

N ? = A - 1.98 - 0.0155^/3- (6)
Other choices of the stability line lead to the same conclusions. The same convention of

the symbols used in Fig. 10 is adopted here with the open circles (top left corner in Fig.

10) denoting Z = 25 isotopes and closed triangles (lower right corner in Fig. 10) denote
Z = 36 isotopes. EPAX predicts isotopes near the stability line to better than a factor of 2.
However, starting around two neutrons beyond the EPAX stability line, over-prediction from
EPAX worsens with increasing neutron richness for a fixed element. By extrapolating the
proton-removed isotopes (N = 50) from the 86 Kr projectiles (the right-most points joined
by the dashed curve), the over-prediction of the rare neutron-rich nuclei such as 78 Ni could
be a factor of 100.

To examine the behavior of EPAX predictions with respect to neutron-rich nuclei, we plot
the ratios of 0"(86K r +9Be)/0"EPAx as a function of the atomic number of the fragments for 42 <

iV < 50 isotones in Fig. [12] The open circles represent predictions from the standard EPAX
calculations. In each panel, the neutron-rich isotopes are those with lowest Z. Aside from the
pick-up reactions, the most neutron-rich fragments created in the projectile fragmentation
reactions of 86 Kr are isotones with N = 50 (lower right panel). In most cases, the last
data point with lowest Z in each isotone chain is only a couple proton numbers away from
the most neutron-rich known nuclei. Thus, EPAX predictions on the production of very
proton rich and neutron rich isotopes can be off by more than an order of magnitude.
Since neutron-rich nuclei are of interest to a variety of problems in astrophysics and nuclear
structure the demand for such beams is high. Unfortunately, the inaccuracy in the beam
rate estimation using EPAX presents large uncertainties in designing experiments involving
these rare isotopes.

Since the EPAX parameters result from fitting the projectile fragmentation data of 40 Ar,
48 Ca, 58 Ni, 86 Kr, 129 Xe, and 208 Pb with the beam energy above 200-MeV/nucleon heavy-ion
data, better fitting parameters may be obtained if only the present data set is used. The
new set of fitting parameters may allow more accurate extrapolation to the yields of very
neutron rich nuclei.

In the original version of EPAX, as briefly described in Appendix A, a total of 24 fitting
parameters was obtained. Table [I] lists the parameters used in the original EPAX as well as

11

the modified EPAX parameters used to fit the present data. (For convenience, we label the
EPAX calculations using the new set of parameters EPAXki-.) The bottom panel of Fig.

11 shows the ratio of data over the predictions from EPAXx r - Compared to the top panel,

the overall agreement with the experimental data is much better. This is not surprising
considering EPAXx r is not a global fit and describes the cross sections for only one reaction.
To study how the extrapolations would behave in the neutron-rich region, the new ratios of

data over the predictions of EPAXx r are plotted as closed points in Fig. [12} Contrary to the
ratios using original EPAX parameters, the new ratios are less than a factor of two over a
large Z range. However, the behavior of the most neutron rich nuclei ratios do not exhibit a
predictable dependence on Z . Thus accurate extrapolation to the unmeasured neutron-rich
region (the left side of each panel with smaller Z for fixed N) cannot be obtained. This could
be due to the fact that EPAX is a fitting code that does not include the properties of exotic
nuclei such as binding energy or neutron separation energy [22] . Better extrapolations will
require the use of models that include more physics. However, discussions of such models
are beyond the scope of this paper.

VI. SUMMARY

Fragmentation production cross sections have been measured for 86 Kr primary beam on
9 Be and 181 Ta reaction targets at 64 MeV/nucleon. The cross-section ratios obtained with
the 181 Ta and 9 Be targets show a fragment mass and charge dependence, contrary to the
simple geometrical models. The isotopic distributions of fragments produced in 86 Kr+ 9 Be
reactions are narrower than those calculated by the EPAX formula resulting in severe cross-
section over-predictions for the very neutron-rich isotopes. The availability of comprehensive
data, such as those presented here, suggests that it is difficult to extrapolate accurately the
cross sections of exotic neutron-rich nuclei with different EPAX fitting parameters [161 E31
124"] . Away from the stability, properties of the exotic nuclei become important, and EPAX
does not include basic nuclear property information such as the binding energy.

12

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the operation group of Riken for producing high quality and
high intensity 86 Kr beam during our experiment. We thank Dr. K. Siimmerer for giving us
invaluable insights on fitting the EPAX parameters. This work is supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant Nos. PHY-01-10253, PHY-0606007 INT-0218329, and
OISE*-0089581.

APPENDIX: EPAX PARAMETERIZATION

In the EPAX parameterization [21] the fragmentation cross section of a fragment with
mass, A, and nuclear charge, Z, created from projectile (A p , Z p ) colliding with a target (A t ,
Z t ) is given by:

a(A, Z) = Y A nexp (-R\Z prob - Z\ U ^A. (A.l)

The first term Y A describes the sum of the isobaric cross sections with A. The second term,
exp (^—R\Z prob — Z\ Un <.pn, is called the "charge dispersion," and describes the distribution of
the elemental cross sections around the maximum value, Z pro b, for a given mass. The shape
of the charge distribution is controlled by the width parameter, R, and the exponents, U n
and Up, describe the neutron-rich (n) and proton-rich (p) side, respectively. The neutron-
rich fragments are defined with Z prob — Z > and all others are considered proton-rich. The

factor n = yR/ir normalizes the integral of the charge dispersion to unity.

The mass yield, Y A , is parameterized as an exponential function of the number of removed
nucleons, A p — A:

Y A = SPexp [—P(A P - A)}. (A.2)

5* is the overall scaling factor that accounts for the peripheral nature of the fragmentation
reaction and proportional to the sum of the projectile and the target radii:

S = S 2 (A l J 3 + A} /3 + S^. (A.3)

with Si and S2 being fitting parameters.

The slope of the exponential function in Equation (A.2), P, is taken as a function of the

projectile mass, A p , with P\ and P2 as fitting parameters:

P = exp(P 2 A p + P 1 ). (A.4)
13

The charge dispersion term, exp (— R\Z prob — Z\ Un &n, in Equation (A.l) is described by

three parameters R, Z prob , and U n (p\. These parameters are strongly correlated [2T] .

The width parameter, R, of the charge distribution is parameterized as a function of the
fragment mass, A, with R\ and R2 as fitting parameters:

R = exp (R 2 A + R x )

(A.5)

To account for the asymmetric nature of the shape of isobaric distributions, the exponents,
U a and Up, for the neutron-rich and proton-rich sides are different.

U n = U n0 + U nl A

(A.6)

U P = U 1 + U 2 A + U 3 A 2 (A. 7)

The maximum of the isobar distribution, Z prob , lies in the valley of stability and it is
parameterized as:

Z prob {A) = Z P {A) + A, (A.8)
where Zp(A) is approximated by a smooth function of the mass number, A:

A

Z/3 ^ 1.98 + 0.0155A 2 /3

(A.9)

and the A parameter is found to be a linear function of the fragment mass, A, for heavy
fragments and a quadratic function of A for lower masses:

A

A 2 A + Ai if A > A 4 ,
where A 1; A 2 , A 3 , and A 4 are EPAX parameters.

A 3 A 2 ifA<A 4

(A.10)

The above description from Eq. (A.l) to (A.10) is sufficient to predict the cross sections

of fragments located close to the line of stability and far from the projectile nucleus, also
referred to as the "residue corridor." For fragments with masses close to the projectile,
corrections to the parameters A, R, and are introduced, according to the following
equations:

A = A
R = R

1 + d^A/Ap - d 2
l + ri {A/A p -r 2 )

Y A = Y A l + yi (A/A p -y 2 f

(A.ll)
(A.12)
(A.13)

14

for (A/Ap - d 2 ) > 0, (A/Ap - r 2 ) > 0, and (A/A p - y 2 ) > 0, respectively.

A final correction is applied in the case of projectile nuclei far from the line of /3-stability,
Zp(A p ). In this case, the fragment distributions keep some memory of the A/Z ratio of the
projectile nucleus resulting in a correction to the maximum, Z pro b, of the charge distribution:

Z prob (A) = Z P {A) + A + A m , (A.14)

where A m is expressed separately for neutron-rich ((Z p — Zp(A p )) < 0) and proton-rich
((Z p — Zp(Ap)) > 0) projectiles:

| {Z p - Z p {Ap))[n 1 {A/Ap) 2 + n 2 {A/ApY\ for neutron rich,
A m = < (A. 15)

y (Z p - Zp(Ap)) exp \p x + p 2 (A/A p )} for proton rich,

where ni, n 2 and pi, p 2 are fitting parameters.

The EPAX parameterization altogether contains 24 parameters (Si, S 2 , P%, P 2 , R\, R 2 ,
Ai, A 2 , A 3 , A 4 , U n0 , U nl , Ux, U 2 , U 3 , m, n 2 , p u p 2 , d h d 2 , n, r 2 , y u and y 2 ), many of which
are strongly intercorrelated. The values used are listed in the middle column in Table [1}

The present set of data of 86 Kr+ 9 Be does not have as extensive mass range as the data

from Ref. [201 • Therefore, Eq. (A. 10) is reduced to fitting only one mass region with one

parameter, A3. Similarly, we do not make corrections to A in Eq. (A.ll). We also found

some improvement if Eq. (A. 7) is mass dependent. (The parameter U n \ in that equation
was absent in the original EPAX fitting.) All the parameters used in EPAXx r are listed in
the rightmost column in Table [Tj Note that these are best-fit parameters to our data and
cannot not be applied to other reactions or at different energies.

15

TABLE I: Parameter values for EPAX [21 and EPAXx r - EPAXxr parameters are obtained by
fitting the 86 Kr+ 9 Be reaction cross-sections.

Parameter

EPAX

EPAXxr

Si

-2.38

0.0

s 2

0.270

0.431175

Pi

-2.584

-2.01932

p 2

-7.5700 x 10" 3

-1.00263 x 10~ 3

Ri

0.885

1.4433

R2

-9.8160 x 10" 3

-2.0546 x 10~ 2

Ai

-1.087

N/A

A 2

3.0470 x 10~ 2

N/A

A 3

2.1353 x 10~ 4

2.1353 x 10" 4

A 4

71.35

N/A

U n Q

1.65

1.7924

Um

N/A

9.819 x 10" 4

Ul

1.788

11.284

u 2

4.7210 x 10~ 3

-0.2505

u 3

-1.3030 x 10~ 5

1.7676 x 10~ 3

m

0.4

-0.4

0.6

0.95

Pi

-10.25

-10.25

P2

10.1

10.1

di

-25.0

N/A

0.80

N/A

n

20.0

-1.5

0.82

0.8

yi

200.0

-10.0

V2

0.90

0.752395

16

[1] I. Tanihata, Nucl. Phys. A 522, 275c (1991).

[2] I. Tanihata, D. Hirata, T. Kobayashi, S. Shimoura, K. Sugimoto, and H. Toki, Phys. Lett. B
289, 261 (1992).

[3] N. Fukunishi, T. Otsuka, and I. Tanihata, Phys. Rev. C 48, 1648 (1993).

[4] T. Motobayashi, Y. Ikeda, Y. Ando, K. Ieki, M. Inoue, N. Iwasa, T. Kikuchi, M. Kurokawa,
W. Moryia, S. Ogawa, et al., Phys. Lett. B 346, 9 (1995).

[5] Y. Yano, in Proceedings 12th Int. Conf. on Cyclotrons and their applications, edited by B. Mar-
tin and K. Ziegler (Word Scientific, 1989).

[6] T. Kubo, M. Ishihara, N. Inabe, H. Kumagai, I. Tanihata, and K. Yoshida, Nucl. Instrum.
Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 70, 309 (1992).

[7] M. Mocko, Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University (2006).

[8] C. Scheidenberg, T. Stohlker, W. E. Meyerhof, H. Geissel, P. H. Mokler, and B. Blank, Nucl.

Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 142, 441 (1998).
[9] D. Bazin, O. Tarasov, M. Lewitowicz, and O. Sorlin, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res.,
Sect. A 482, 307 (2002), URL |http : //www . nscl ■ msu . edu/l"ise

[10] D. Bazin, D. Guerreau, R. Anne, D. Guillemaud-Mueller, A. C. Mueller, and M. G. Saint-
Laurent, Nucl. Phys. A 515, 349 (1990).

[11] M. Mocko, M. B. Tsang, L. Andronenko, M. Andronenko, F. Delaunay, M. A. Famiano,
T. Ginter, V. Henzl, D. Henzlova, H. Hua, et al., Phys. Rev. C 74, 054612 (2006).

[12] N. Iwasa, H. Geissel, G. Miinzenberg, C. Scheidenberger, T. Schwab, and H. Wollnik, Nucl.
Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 126, 284 (1997).

[13] K. V. Bibber, D. L. Hendrie, D. K. Scott, H. H. Weiman, L. S. Schroeder, J. V. Geaga, S. A.
Cessin, R. Treuhaft, Y. J. Grossiord, J. O. Rasmussen, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 840 (1979).

[14] A. S. Goldhaber, Phys. Lett. B 53, 306 (1974).

[15] R. Dayras, A. Pagano, J. Barrette, B. Berthier, D. M. D. C. Rizzo, E. Chavez, O. Cisse,
R. Legrain, M. C. Mermaz, E. C. Pollacco, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 460, 299 (1986).

[16] M. Notani, H. Sakurai, N. Aoi, H. Iwasaki, N. Fukuda, Z. Liu, K. Yoneda, H. Ogawa, T. Teran-
ishi, T. Nakamura, et al., nucl-ex/0702050vl.

[17] S. Kox, A. Gamp, P. Cherkaoui, A. J. Cole, N. Longequeue, J. Menet, C. Perrin, and J. B.

17

FIG. 1: Layout of the experimental facility at RIKEN. The LINAC injector and the K540 cyclotron
are shown along with the experimental areas E1-E6. The RIPS fragment separator is located in
experimental areas D and E6. [6]

Viano, Nucl. Phys. A 420, 162 (1984).
[18] H. Sakurai, S. M. Lukyanov, M. Notani, N. Aoi, D. Beaumel, N. Fukuda, M. Hirai, E. Ideguchi,

N. Imai, M. Ishihara, et al., Phys. Lett. B 448, 180 (1999).
[19] K. Siimmerer, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 204, 278 (2003).
[20] M. Weber, C. Donzaud, J. P. Dufour, H. Geissel, A. Grewe, D. Guillemaud-Mueller, H. Keller,

M. Lewitowicz, A. Magel, A. C. Mueller, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 578, 659 (1994).
[21] K. Siimmerer and B. Blank, Phys. Rev. C 61, 034607 (2000).
[22] W. A. Friedman and M. B. Tsang, Phys. Rev. C 67, 051601 (2003).
[23] K. Siimmerer, private communications.
[24] Z. Y. Sun, private communications.

18

FIG. 2: RIPS fragment separator consisting of two dipoles (Dl and D2) and twelve quadrupoles
(Q1-Q12). The momentum acceptance was determined by the momentum slit placed at Fl. The
beam intensity monitor (MOMOTA) is shown in the top left oval below the target position. The
particle identification setup was located at the F2 and F3 focal planes.

10 2

I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1

iV* • Be target !

_ 10

\ \ ■ Ta target ]

^ 1

-1— •

CO lu
_Q

Ql10- 2

86 Kr \ \ \
\ *

10" 3

\ '~* ~

Z-Q

FIG. 3: Primary beam charge state distributions for 86 Kr+ 9 Be (closed circles) and 86 Kr+ 181 Ta
(closed squares) plotted as a function of number of unstripped electrons, Z — Q. Solid and dashed
curves show calculation by GLOBAL code [8] as implemented in LISE++ [9] for 9 Be and 181 Ta
targets, respectively.

19

3000

_U3
CD

cc

LU

<1

2000-

700 750 800

ToF (channels)

34

33

32

31

O

CD

-t— «

CC

H — '

CO

Q) 30

03

O

29

28

27

Ratio A?Q

FIG. 4: (Color online) Particle identification spectrum for the 86 Kr+ 9 Be reaction measured at a
2.07 Tm magnetic rigidity setting. Left panel shows the PID with three gates around elements
with Z = 28, 31, 34. Right panel shows the corresponding projections to charge state, Q, versus
A/Q ratio plane of events within from bottom to top, respectively.

20

60 70 80

Fragment mass number A

FIG. 5: Dependence of the transmission correction factor, e, on fragment mass number, A, for the
86 Kr+ 9 Be reactions.

10"

E

o10
>

CD

^10"

-3 =-

-D|-D 10 -5

10

-6

18000 20000

p (MeV/c)

22000

FIG. 6: Momentum distributions for 64 Zn 30+ produced in fragmentation of 86 Kr on the 9 Be target.
The solid curve represents a fit with Eq. ^ and the dotted curve is a Gaussian fit, to the right
side of the momentum distribution, to show the asymmetry of the experimental distribution.

21

CO

C

o
o

1 10 2 mb

Fe
Mn

. 9i-.

Kr

■

El

Kr+ tse

Br

■

1 10 6

Se

■

D

As

■

mb Ge

■

□

■■■

Ga

■

Zn ■

Cu

■

■■

Ni

D

45

47 49

Co

■

43

c

■

■

■

41

R| projectile

■

37

39

27 29 31 33 35

Neutrons

FIG. 7: (Color online) Measured cross sections for 180 fragments produced in the 86 Kr+ 9 Be
reactions.

22

10
10

1

10 2
10

I 1

o

'o 10 2

C/)
C/)

8 10

2 ^

o

1

10 2

F Mn i

• • •

^ • •

: // □ □ N N :
- / □ n

r □ -

: □

; q ;

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

f Fe 1

•

* * •

' □

: □ ;
i — | — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — | — i — t=J — i

■ Co

• •

* u -

: Q □ :

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

: Ni ;
• • •

- * / u

- // □ _

: □ :

! CU

• 1X3

'■ □

i | i i i | i i i | i i i | i i i

; Zn

A' □ ;
i — ^ — i — i — i — | — i — i — i — | — i — i — i — | — i — i — i

' 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' '

F Ga 1

✓

□

i 1 i i i 1 i i i 1 i i i 1 i i i

' Ge ]

□

r As

r □ *

' i ' ' ' i ' ' ' i ' ' ' i ' ' '
: Se

□ □ i=i

_ /

i | i i i | i i i | i i i | i i i

Br

□ □ □

□

□ • V?

• /,'

1 /'

//
//

5 /

. i ... k ... i ... i ., .

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Kr

□ □ D :
n * * -

□ • v

• //

□ /'

//
/>
fl
//

, 1 , , , 1 , f , 1 , , , 1 , , ,

2468 2468 2468

Neutron excess N-Z

FIG. 8: Measured cross sections presented as isotope distributions for 25 < Z < 36 elements
detected in the 86 Kr+ 181 Ta reactions (filled circles) and in the 86 Kr+ 9 Be reactions (open squares)
at 64 MeV/nucleon. EPAX calculations are shown as dashed ( 86 Kr+ 9 Be) and solid ( 86 Kr+ 181 Ta)
curves.

23

10

1

10" 2

10" 4
10

10" 1

-4

10

^10" 7

I 10 2
o

CD
CO

CO

CO u n -1

O 1

O

-4

10

10 2
10

10" 1
10" 3

■\ 1

- Mn V -

H ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' > ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ■

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

: Fe \ :

i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | V i i i | i i

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

7 A \A

h *\ A

: ^A "

; Co i ;

1 1 1 Mi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 1

■_ l\ J

; Ni ;

" i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"

B \ -

cu "v ;

i -

" r

Zn "

■ * A

- Ga X -

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i
- f A \z

[ Ge

A

i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i
^^^^^

* A

As

' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' |-H ' '
A

- ./^V*

; se 4 ;

, , . , i . , , , i , , . , i . , , , i , ,

1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1
■ /

Jf A

§7
i7

1 Br

, , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , ,

i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i
■ A / A

■ /

A/

a/

y Kr

, , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , ,

5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20

Neutron excess N-Z

FIG. 9: Measured cross sections presented as isotope distributions for 25 < Z < 36 elements
detected in the 86 Kr+ 9 Be reactions at 64 MeV/nucleon. Experimental fragmentation data are
shown as filled squares. EPAX predictions are shown as solid curves. For comparison, open
triangles show the published data of 86 Kr+ 9 Be at 500 MeV/nucleon [20 .

24

<

CQ

N

<

60 70 80

Mass number A

FIG. 10: Ratios of the fragmentation cross sections on Ta and Be targets, o"T a (^4, Z)/a-Q e (A, Z),
for fragments with 25 < Z < 36 for the 86 Kr beam. Only ratios with relative errors smaller than
25% are shown. Open and solid symbols represent odd and even elements starting with Z = 25.
The horizontal dashed and dotted lines indicate the ratio calculated by the EPAX formula and Eq.
Q, respectively.

_ Z=25

i i i i |

8 6(<r

S^L Z=36E

25

FIG. 11: Ratio of the experimental cross sections and predicted cross sections from EPAX (top
panel) and our modified EPAXx r formula (bottom panel). For clarity, isotopes from each element
are joined by the dashed lines. Open and solid symbols represent odd and even elements from
Z = 25 to Z = 36. The bold dashed curve joining the N = 50 proton-removed isotopes ( 84 Se,
83 As, 82 Ge, 81 Ga, 80 Zn, and 79 Cu are labeled with mass number) is obtained from a fit. The curve
allows extrapolation of the production estimates of very neutron-rich nucleus such as 78 Ni.

26

1

-

; N=42 / ;

■ 6 -

: :

: N=43 i :

. -

: N=44 / :

;

/

o ■

/

/

/

A

; # ;

^— — 1 1 :

?

; 1 1 ;

: N=45 pi

: 1 1 :

: N=46

\ N=47

Q.
LU

6

CD 1
+

CD
00

/ ■
/ -

i 6
_ r± 0-® _

. — ^_

/

/

P

: * * ♦ . * t ? ♦

V

: f

: N=48

: N=49

; H 1 — :

\ N=50

1

i ]
if

i~ . I

9

f , i

~i

30 35

30 35

Nuclear charge Z

30 35

FIG. 12: Ratios of 86 Kr+ 9 Be fragment experimental cross sections to EPAX |21| (open symbols)
and to our modified EPAXx r (solid symbols) predictions plotted as a function of nuclear charge,
Z, for 42 < N < 50 isotones.

27