PHYSICAL REVIEW C VOLUME 31, NUMBER 1 JANUARY 1985

Test of microscopic optical model potentials for neutron elastic scattering

at 14.6 Mev over a wide mass range

L. F. Hansen, F. S. Dietrich, B. A. Pohl, C. H. Poppe, and C. %'ong

Lawrence Liuermore National Laboratory, Uniuersity of California, Liuermore, California 94550
{Received 27 August 1984)
Differential cross sections for the elastic scattering of 14.6 MeV neutrons from Be, C, Al, Fe,
' Co, Y, Nb, In, ' Ce, ' 'Ta, ' Au, Pb, and Bi have been measured using a time-of-Aight fa-
cility. The measured cross sections cover the angular range from 9.2 to 159'. Calculations have
been carried out using two local microscopic optical potentials, based on the work of Jeukenne,
Lejeune, and Mahaux, and of Brieva and Rook. Reasonably good agreement with the measurements
is found over the whole mass range, with the Jeukenne-Lejeune-Mahaux potential giving systemati-
cally better agreement with the data. The quality of the results with the Jeukenne-Lejeune-Mahaux
potential compares well with that obtained from phenomenological optical model calculations using
global parameters.

I. INTRODUCTION clear matter calculations. The JLM approach begins with

the Reid hard-core potential and computes the complex
A large number of neutron elastic differential cross sec- optical potential in nuclear matter as a function of energy
tion measurements at 14— 15 MeV have appeared in the and density. On the other hand, the Brieva-Rook ap-
literature' in the last 30 years on targets ranging from proach is based on the Hamada-Johnston potential and
hydrogen to uranium. The measurements and analyses yields a local, complex, energy and density dependent ef-
have been carried out under quite different conditions, fective interaction that approximates the nuclear matter g
which include beam energy resolution, size and geometry matrix; this effective interaction is folded with the nuclear
of the targets, flight paths, detector efficiency, and tech- density to yield the optical potential.
niques to correct for effects due to the large targets. As a The analysis of the present measurements is part of a
result, wide variations 'are observed in the quality of the program to test systematically these two microscopic
data. Typically, the data have been fit by a phenomeno- models for both proton and neutron scattering over a wide
logical optical-model analysis. Global optical model range of masses and energies, " ' using a consistent set of
(QM) parameter sets, such as those of Bjorklund and approximations and calculational techniques. In the
Fernbach, Percy and Buck, Wilmore and Hodgson, present work we discuss the comparison of the microscop-
Becchetti and Cxreenlees, and Rapaport et al. , ' have ic calculations with our recent measurements of the neu-
been used. Improved fits for individual nuclei have been tron elastic differential cross sections at 14.6 MeV for 13
obtained with parameters that vary somewhat from those targets between Be and Bi which are either separated iso-
of the global sets. This work reports measurements at topes or natural samples that are nearly isotopically pure.
14.6 MeV from Be, C, Al, Fe, Co Y Nb In This comparison would have been much less effective
Ce, ' 'Ta, ' Au, Pb, and Bi. The purpose of these with only the existing 14 MeV data, ' given the hetero-
measurements was to provide a consistent data set for fur- geneity in the experimental conditions and the lack of
ther optical-model analyses. The new data set has been isotopically-pure targets in the mass range 9 & A & 209.
analyzed using two different microscopic optical poten- In addition to the comparisons with the microscopic
tials, and has also been compared with the predic- potentials, the data have been compared with calculations
tions of the global optical potential of Rapaport et al. ' carried out with phenomenological optical model poten-
In recent years, two local microscopic optical poten- tials for two global parameter sets, the Becchetti-
tials, due to Jeukenne, Lejeune, and Mahaux (JLM), Greenlees, and the Rapaport et al. ' global potentials.
and Brieva and Rook, ' have been shown ' ' to The results obtained with these two sets ' ' are quite
give reasonable agreement between calculations of elastic similar, with Rapaport et al. (the "Qhio set") giving
scattering differential cross sections and proton and neu- slightly better agreement with the measurements. The pa-
tron scattering measurements. These potentials are based rameters in the Ohio set have been obtained from an
on a free nucleon-nucleon potential, and the scattering in analysis of neutron elastic scattering measurements from
nuclear matter is calculated by solving the Bethe- Ca to Pb in the energy range 7 — 26 MeV.
Goldstone equation. The two approaches differ in the
choice of the free nucleon-nucleon potential, the tech-
II. EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
AND PROCEDURE
niques used in many-body calculations, and the way in
which a local-density approximation is applied to relate The measurements have been made using as a 14.6 MeV
the optical potential in finite nuclei to the results of nu- neutron source the H(d, n) He reaction at 0 w'ith a 12

31 1985 The American Physical Society

112 HANSEN, DIETRICH, POHL, POPPE, AND WONG 31

MeV incident deuteron beam from the Lawrence Liver- The efficiency of the NE213 detectors was calculated
more National Laboratory (LLNL) tandem electrostatic with the Livermore code EFFIC; this efficiency, when used
accelerator. The beam was bunched, 1 — 2 ns wide, and to analyze the measurement of the differential cross sec-
-swept at a 2.5 MHz burst rate. The deuterium target was tions for the H(d, n) He neutron source reaction using the
a 1 cm diameter by 3 cm long gas cell filled to a pressure 16 detectors, reproduces well Drosg's ' evaluation of the
of 2 atm. The cell, a stainless steel cylinder with a 0.038 angular distribution for this reaction. A small stilbene
cm wall thickness, had a 5.26 mg/cm Havar entrance detector, 5.08 cm diameter by 5.08 cm thick, positioned in
window and a 984 mg/cm Au stop, and was mounted at a shielded enclosure at -40 and 10 m from the target,
the end of a 30 cm long, low mass, stainless steel stem. was used as a neutron flux monitor.
Two identical cells mounted on their respective parallel In order to carry out the present measurements, addi-
stems which could rotate into position in the deuterium tional shielding was installed in the TOF facility to im-
beam path were used during the measurements. One cell -
prove the ratio of the neutrons scattered from the target
was filled to 2 atm of deuterium gas and the second one to those coming directly from the gas cell. Figure 1
was evacuated in order to measure the neutron back- shows a schematic view of the shielding arrangement in-
ground contribution from the empty cell. stalled close to the gas cell-target system. It is composed
The zero degree 14.6 MeV neutron burst impinged on of a set of 16 wedges distributed in angle around the tar-
the scattering samples positioned at 20 cm from the gas get at a radius of 30 cm, covering the angular range
cell. The targets, Be, C, Al, Fe, Co, Y, Nb, In, ' Ce, Ta, —
9.2 159'. Each wedge, 5.04 cm thick and 1 m long, has
Au, Pb, and Bi, were nominally cylinders of 2.5 cm di- two sections; the 30 cm closest to the target is lead and
ameter and 5 cm height. They were mounted on a hollow, the remaining 70 cm is iron. This shielding resulted in ra-
1 cm diameter nylon pole whose contribution to the back- tios of scattered-to-transmitted neutrons that were im-
ground was negligible because of its very small mass. proved by factors of 20 to 50 over the values obtained
The scattered neutrons were detected using the LLNL without the wedges for the fifteen detectors.
time-of-flight (TQF) facility in which 16 NE213 liquid
scintillator detectors (11.3 cm diameter by 5. 1 cm long) al-
low simultaneous measurements in the angular region III. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
from 3. 5' to 159' (see Fig. 1). In the present work the
elastic differential cross sections were measured between To account for the different sources of background,
9.2 and 159 and the flight path was 10.75 m for all the four spectra were measured for each target: 3, sample
detectors. The neutron detector bias was 5.4 MeV, and in/gas in; B, sample out/gas in; C, sample in/gas out; and
pulse-shape discrimination was used to reduce the D, sample out/gas out. The net counts (NC) from the
gamma-ray background. scatterer alone are given by

NC=[(sample in) —~&(sample out)] „;„—

X3[(sample in) —&2(sample out)]gas Out ~

98.7 83.4'
113.2' where K&, K2, and K3 are normalization constants, with
128.7' 68.7' K~ normalized to the monitor and K2 and E3 normalized
Eart
to charge. For K~, the monitor and charge normalization
143.9' agree within statistical uncertainties.
~ilÃI~Wllrr% ~ FilÃAWiÃlg
The detector and monitor counts were corrected for
dead time, which was larger for the "gas in" spectra, but
30
always less than 5%%uo. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the
3.8 four spectra 2, B, C, and D for carbon at 9.2 deg. The
16.7'
contributions to the background from the empty cell are
rather small and can be neglected for the elastic peaks at
9.2 forward angles; however, it is important to subtract them
Scatterer
m pickoff 3.5' at the minima of the elastic angular distributions and for
213 inelastic differential cross sections. The net counts due to
/Magnetic steerer
p////////////////////
///
/////
mator elastic scattering were obtained from Gaussian fits to the
peaks in the net spectra given by Eq. (1), assuming the
7//////////1/1/11/1/1////1//////SCQ Bc[848F/P//Ã/7////7/////7/7///4 background to be linear. Multiple scattering corrections,
flux attenuation in the scattering sample, and finite angu-
lar resolution corrections were calculated with the Monte
FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the Livermore time-of- Carlo code MULCAT. '
flight facility and wedge shielding used in the present measure- The uncertainties in the relative differential cross sec-
ments. The 3. 5 detector, turned off for an elastic scattering tions are about 6% for the forward angles, increasing to
run, is used to measure the incident flux on the scatterer per approximately 15— 20% for some of the backward angles
monitor count (see the text). and smaller targets (e.g. , Au: 1 cm diameter, 2 cm height).
31 TEST OF MICROSCOPIC OPTICAL MODEL POTENTIALS. . . 113

I These uncertainties include the statistical counting error

C (n, no) and the error (-5%) in the shape of the detector efficien-
25— Target in
Gas in
9.2 cy versus energy curve. In addition, there is an uncertain-
Gas out --- -" ty in the absolute differential cross sections which arises
-- — ! from the uncertainty in determining the incident neutron
20— Target out
Gas in
I fl ux perr monitor
m count (-3%), and the error in measur-
OC Gas out ing the distance between the gas cell and the targe r et
(1— 2%). In computing the statistical counting error on
O
15— I
the differential elastic cross sections, it was assum
sumed that
I
P the net spectra given by (1) were obtained in a direct mea-
0 l
l surement. Hence, the statistical error computation ig-
4) 10— /
nores the contributions from K„Kz, and K3. This error
.I
agrees well with the exact value obtained by differentiat-
ing (1), since in the present measurements the constant K~
jr
is —1, and the counts with the gas out are negligible suc
that the Kz and IC3 terms in Eq. (1) are small effects in
0 L ===- I ""l -. NI
the calculation of the error. The absolute cross sections
750 755 765 770 775 are obtained from measuring at 3. 5 the neutron flux in-
Channel cident on the scatterer per monitor count. The error in
the incident neutron flux per monitor count is determined
FIG. 2. Neutron elastic peak at 9.2 from the C target bom- mainy b y thee nu
mainl number of counts accumulated in the low
barded with 14.6 MeV neutrons. The curves correspondond to thee count-rate monitor. The length of runs is suc a the
such that
four measurements carried out to- account fofor all sources of counts in the monitor have between 2 — 3% statistical er-
background contributions {see the text). rors. Finally, the statistical errors in the Monte Carlo ca-
culations of the target geometry corrections were less thin
1%. The measured differential cross sections are shown
in Figs. 3 — 8 together with the calculations to be dis-
cussed.

104 =: 10' = I
'
I

Measurements IVleasurements
10 104 ==

104
10

~ 1P4
103 E
E C'
o 1P
Q
10

10 10
10 102

10 10
100 I I I
10' I I I

0 20 60 100 140 180 20 60 100 140 180

8 (deg)
8 (deg)

FIG. 3. Measurements of the neutron elastic differential FIG. 4. Measurements of the neutron elastic differential
cross sections for Be, C ' Al Fe and Co. Calculations car-
ried out wi'th th e microscopic OMP of Jeukenne-Lejeune-
cross sections f or,
Y Nb , Inn, and '~Ce. Calculations carried
out with the microscopic OMP of Jeukenne-Lejeune-Mahaux
Mahaux (JLM: solid lines) and that of Brieva-Rook (das e (JLM: solid lines) and that of Brieva-Rook (dashed lines). For
lines) For C anand Fe the calculations have been done assuming In, the calculations have been done assuming o In isoto-"
100% ' C and Fe isotopic composition, respectively. pic composition.
114 HANSEN, DIETRICH, POHL, POPPE, AND WONG 31

1O' = 105 I

IVleasurements
1O4 1O4

1O4 1O4

—1O' 1O4

J2
E E
~ 1O4 10
u

1O4

103 10
10 10
10" 10
10O I I I I
1O' I I I I
" /
I

0 20 60 100 140 180 20 60 100 140 180

0 (deg) 0 (deg)

FIG. 5. Measurements of the neutron elastic differential

cross sections for ' 'Ta, ' Au, Pb, and Bi. Calculations FIG. 7. Same as in Fig. 4 except dashed curves refer to calcu-
carried out with the microscopic OMP of Jeukenne-Lejeune- lations using the OMP of Rapaport et al.
Mahaux (JLM: solid hnes) and that of Brieva-Rook (dashed
lines).

1O4 =- 1O' =
IVleasurernents
10 1O4

1O4
10

1O4
10 EA

E E
=
1O4
103 a

10 103
10 102
10" 10"
10P I
o I I I I

0 20 60 100 140 180 0 20 60 100 140 180

0 (deg) 0 (deg)

FIG. 6. Same as in Fig. 3 except dashed curves refer to calcu- FIG. 8. Same as in Fig. 5 except dashed curves refer to calcu-
lations using the OMP of Rapaport et al. lations using the OMP of Rapaport et al.
 31 TEST OF MICROSCOPIC OPTICAL MODEL POTENTIALS. . . 115

IV. OPTICAL-MODEL ANALYSIS previous . works '" ' the self-consistent wave number
OF THE DATA used in making a local approximation to the nonlocal ex-
change term has been determined from the purely real ex-
A. Microscopic calculations pression
The microscopic optical potentials were calculated by fi k(r) /2m =E —Re U(r),
folding an effective interaction with the nuclear density;
details of how this was done may be found in Ref. 49 for where Re U(r) is the real part of the central optical poten-
both the real and spin-orbit potentials. As in Ref. 49, tial. In the present work we have used the complex self-
only the central potential was calculated from the JI.M consistent wave number obtained by inserting the entire,
and Brieva-Rook procedures. The effective interaction complex central potential in the preceding equation. Gen-
used to calculate the spin-orbit potential was taken from eral treatments of the Percy-Buck transformation show
the work of Bertsch et al. (Elliott matrix elements). that the complex wave number is the appropriate approxi-
The spin-orbit potential is real and independent of energy mation in reducing a nonlocal potential to an equivalent
and density. The real and imaginary components of the local one. The practical consequences of the improved ap-
central part of the optical potential were multiplied by proximation in the present energy range are an overall
normalizing constants A, z and A, ~, respectively, and these reduction of the volume integral of the imaginary poten-
parameters were adjusted by least squares for an optimal tial by 15— 20% relative to calculations with a real wave
fit to the data. The values of these parameters are shown number, and a slight increase in the surface-to-volume ra-
in Table I. No adjustment of the spin-orbit potential was tio of the imaginary component, which is in the direction
made, as it appears to reproduce elastic analyzing power of improved consistency with phenomenological poten-
data below 25 MeV very well without alteration. tials. All of the Brieva-Rook calculations were performed
Proton densities were taken from the results of electron with both prescriptions, although only those with the
scattering experiments. In the light and medium weight complex self-consistent wave number are presented here.
nuclei ( Be to Nb) the neutron density was assumed pro- The normalizing parameters, shown in Table I and Fig. 9,
portional to the proton density, whereas a small increase are larger by 15— 20% than those obtained with the real
in the neutron rms radius relative to that for protons (up wave number, but the observable quantities (angular dis-
to 2.6%) was used for a number of the heavier nuclei, as tributions, total and reaction cross sections) are very simi-
expected from Hartree-Pock and droplet-model calcula- lar with the two procedures after the normalization has
tions. Sample calculations made with different shapes for been applied.
the neutron and proton densities did not yield results sig- The comparison between the predictions of the micro-
nificantly different from those with the same shapes. scopic models (after normalization) and the angular distri-
This is as expected, since neutron scattering is. very insen- bution data is shown in Figs. 3 — 5. The total cross sec-
sitive to these rather small differences between neutron tions predicted by the normalized potentials are shown in
and proton radii, mainly because of the weakness of the Table II, along with the measurements reported by Foster
neutron-neutron interaction relative to that between neu- and Glasgow.
trons and protons in the present energy range. Both microscopic approaches give reasonable results in
An improvement was made in the treatment of the ex- view of the limited number of free parameters in the cal-
change term when using the Brieva-Rook interaction. In culations. However, the JLM potentials yield systemati-

TABLE I. Values of g /N and the normalization para'meters A, v and A, ~ for the neutron elastic differential cross sections at 14.6
MeV, compared with the Brieva-Rook and JLM microscopic optical model potentials and with the Rapaport et al. set A global po-
tential.
8rieva-Rook JLM Rapaport et al.
Target g /N kv /N Av ~W
Be 46.4 0.94 1.23 29.4 1.00 1.25 40.2 0.96 0.83
C 60.3 1.03 1.59 14.1 1.04 1.04 32.5 0.96 0.67
Al 51.1 1.02 1.68 6.3 0.99 1.06 12.0 0.96 0.72
Fe 13.0 1.04 1.52 3.9 0.96 0.97 4.0 1.00 0.78
Co 32.8 1.02 1.48 2.6 0.95 0.96 6.7 0.98 0.82
Y 38.5 1.02 1.08 5.5 0.97 0.92 8.0 1.00 0.84
Nb 9.6 1.02 1.28 2.0 0.96 0.94 2.2 0.98 0.96
In 12.7 1.00 1.51 7.2 0.98 1.18 7.6 1.00 1.07
Ce 12.9 1.01 1.19 7.6 0.97 0.92 7.5 1.02 0.84
Ta 24.9 0.99 0.98 6.8 0.94 0.70 6.5 0.99 0.87
Au 7.4 1.00 1.00 7.6 0.98 1.00 3.1 0.99 0.92
Pb 11.0 1.01 0.97 4.0 0.97 0.81 2.9 1.00 0.84
Bi 17.6 1.01 0.92 8.2 0.97 0.80 6.4 1.00 0.82
 HANSEN, DIETRICH, POHL, POPPE, AND WONG 31

2.0 I The normalizing parameters A, & for the real central po-
JLM tential are gratifying close to unity (within a few percent)
Brieva-Rook in all cases, which indicates that the volume integrals are
1.5— correctly predicted in both models. However, the shapes
of the real potentials are strikingly different, with the
0 Brieva-Rook potentials showing a strong deviation from a
E Woods-Saxon shape because of the presence of a "bump"
& 1.0
in the region of the nuclear surface. ' ' In a study of
the Brieva-Rook and JLM potentials for nucleon scatter-
ing on medium-mass nuclei ( ' Fe), an examination of
0.5 the behavior of the potentials in momentum space led to
2.0 the conclusion that both the difficulties in reproducing
the large-angle differential cross sections and the overesti-
mate of the total cross sections with the Brieva-Rook po-
tential were correlated with the unusual shape of the real
1.5 Q
potential. These results are consistent with the worsening
lO
agreement between calculation and experiment with de-
creasing mass in the present study, since the surface re-
~ 1.0— gion where the unusual behavior occurs becomes a larger
fraction of the nuclear volume as the target mass de-
l
creases. Indeed, such non-Woods-Saxon shapes are ex-
0.5 l I

pected ' in the medium-energy range (& 100 MeV).

50 100 150 200
However, on the basis of the present results and the earlier
A
study of Fe it appears that the surface bump is too
FIG. 9. Normalizing parameters A, ~ and A, ~ for the real ( V) pronounced in the lower energy range ((26 MeV). It is
and imaginary ( 8'} potentials, respectively, determined from a not clear at the present time whether this anomaly is due
least square fit to measured elastic angular distributions. Trian- to the use of the Hamada-Johnston interaction, which has
gles, Jeukenne-Lejeune-Mahaux OM potentials; circles, Brieva- an unusually hard core, or whether it reflects an inaccura-
Rook OM potentials. The solid and dashed lines have been cy in deriving the density dependence of the effective in-
drawn only to guide the eye. teraction.
The normalizing constants A, ~ for the imaginary poten-
cally better quantitative agreement with the data than the tial show more scatter than those for the real potential,
Brieva-Rook potentials, and the difference between the but nevertheless a reasonably smooth trend with mass is
two sets of calculations becomes more pronounced with evident for both the Brieva-Rook and JLM potentials.
decreasing target mass. These differences appear mainly The parameter A, ~ for the Brieva-Rook potentials shows a
in the large angle ( & 80') behavior of the angular distribu- tendency to decrease with increasing target mass. The
tions and in the tendency for the Brieva-Rook potentials mass dependence of A, ~ is less marked for the JLM poten-
to systematically overpredict the total cross sections, ex- tials, although there is a suggestion of a slight decrease to-
cept in the heaviest nuclei. ward the higher masses for these potentials also. The

TABLE II. Values of the neutron total cross sections, o.T, at 14.6 MeV calculated with the normal-
ized Brieva-Rook and JLM microscopic OMP and the normalized Rapaport et al. (Ref. 41) global
OMP. The experimental values are from Foster and G1asgow (Ref. 56}. All cross sections are in barns.
Rapaport
Target Brie va-Rook JLM et al. Experiment
Be 1.69 1.44 1.50 1.43
C 1.82 1.45 1.60 1.39
Al 2. 19 1.73 1.83 1.78
Fe 3.03 2.52 2.65 2.47
Co 3. 14 2.69 2.76 2.86

Y 4.07 3.62 3.89 3.79

Nb 4.21 3.77 3.97 3.84
In 4.62 4. 14 4.58 4.43
140C 5. 14 4.64 4.99 4.84

Ta 6. 15 5.51 5.40 5.40

Au 5.59 4.87 5.46 5.29
208pb 5.83 5.25 5.46 5.51
Bi 5.79 5.22 5.46 5.58
 TEST OF MICROSCOPIC OPTICAL MODEL POTENTIALS. . .

mean value and standard deviation of A, ~ are 0.96+0.15 TABLE III. Neutron global optical model potential below 15
for the JLM potentials; these quantities show that the MeV. '
magnitude of the imaginary potential is predicted rather
Parameters Set A'
accurately by the JLM approach. The shapes of the imag-
inary potentials differ from those of phenomenological V 54. 19 —0.33 E —/{22.7 —0. 19E)
potentials, which are usually surface peaked at this energy Wg) 4.28+0.40E —12. 8g'
with little or no volume component. The JLM potential Wy 0.
shows a pronounced surface peak, but there is also a sig- V„ 6.2
nificant volume component (3.7 MeV at the origin). The 1.198
Brieva-Rook potential may be roughly described by a ag 0.663
predominantly volume form with a small surface peak. Tr 1.295
These deviations from the phenomenological results may ar 0.59
represent a deficiency of the local density approximation, ~so 1.01
since explicit finite-nucleus effects (such as the coupling aso 0.75
of the probe to nuclear surface vibrations) are not accu- 'Rapaport et al. (Ref. 41); all potential strengths in MeV and
rately treated. geometrical parameters in fm. The quantity g is the asymmetry
Both microscopic potentials underpredict the back- parameter ( X — Z) /A.
angle cross sections in the lightest nuclei ( Be and
' C).
Apart from possible inaccuracies in the details of the
present treatment and of the local density approximation A, z and k~ for the phenomenological calculations. The
when applied to light nuclei, this deficiency may indicate fits to the measured neutron elastic differential cross sec-
the necessity of adding exchange terms other than the tions with the phenomenological potential are reasonably
single-nucleon knockout contributions that have been in- good over the whole mass range. This is more or less ex-
cluded in the present work. Such terms have been'shown pected because of the global nature of the parameter set,
to affect the back-angle cross sections in very light nu-
clei. For zero-spin targets, the problem is probably not
which was obtained from the simultaneous
neutron elastic scattering from Ca, Zr, Mo, "'
analysis of
Sn,
due primarily 'to channel-coupling effects, since a and Pb in the 7 — 26 MeV energy range. We note the
coupled-channel treatment of neutron scattering from same difficulties in reproducing the back-angle data on
' C with phenomenological potentials shows that the ef-
light nuclei as were observed with the microscopic poten-
fect of channel coupling on elastic scattering is not very tials. Somewhat better results can be obtained in light nu-
important after the potential strengths are readjusted. For clei with phenomenological potentials, but only with
nuclei of spin one and greater, on the other hand, a quad- geometrical parameters different from those appropriate
rupole deformation affects elastic scattering directly via a for medium and heavy nuclei. It is interesting to observe
one-step process. Such an effect has been shown ' in Li that the microscopic OM calculations, and in particular
to remedy a back-angle gficiency very much like that ex- those carried out with the JLM potential, fit the data
hibited by Be in the present work. equally well and in some cases better than the
phenomenological OMP. The lowest values of X /N are
obtained with the JLM potential for most of the nuclei
B. Phenomenological calculations
listed in Table I.
The quality of the fits obtained with the microscopic The variations of the normalizing parameters A, ~ and
optical model potential (OMP) have been compared with A, ~ with A are shown in Table I. Although little normali-
calculations carried out with global"' OM parameters op- zation is required for the real part of the phenomenologi-
timized to fit neutron data in the 7 — 26 MeV energy cal central potential, the imaginary potential must be re-
range. The OM calculations were performed with the pa- duced by a factor whose mean and standard deviation are
rameters given in Ref. 41 as set A for E (15 MeV; how- 0.84+0. 10. This is not particularly surprising, as no an-
ever, the strengths of the central-potential terms were nor- gular distributions in the energy range between 12 and 20
malized in fitting the data, as described in the following. MeV were included in the determination of the global po-
The values of the parameters before normalization, in a tential. Moreover, there is a sharp corner (i.e., a discon-
standard form, are listed in Table III. tinuity in the slope) in the energy dependence of the sur-
A comparison of the OM calculations carried out with face imaginary potential at 15 MeV in the potentials of
the JLM microscopic OMP and the global phenomenolog- Ref. 41, which is presumably nonphysical.
ical potential ' are shown in Figs. 6— 8, together with the The total cross sections are shown in Table II. The
measured angular distributions. The fits to the data with values calculated with the JLM potential and with the
the phenomenological potential were obtained by a least phenomenological model are in reasonable agreement with
squares fitting of the strengths of the real and imaginary the experimental values.
potentials, Vz and 8'D. The ratios between the values of
these potentials after searching and their initial values V. SUMMARY
given by the "set 2" parametrization in Ref. 41 are called
,

A, v and k~, in analogy with the normalizing parameters In this work, new measurements of neutron angular dis-
described earlier for the microscopic calculations. Table I tributions have been made at 14.6 MeV on targets over a
lists the values of X /N and the normalizing parameters wide mass range ( Be to Bi). The data have been com-
 HANSEN, DIETRICH, POHL, POPPE, AND WONG 31

pared with optical-model calculations using potentials de- data in the light nuclei is observed to persist up to roughly
rived from the microscopic treatments of Brieva and 2=60. The systematic overestimate of the forward-angle
Rook, and of Jeukenne, Lejeune, and Mahaux. They have cross sections and the total cross sections in the calcula-
also been compared with a phenom enological optical tions with the Brieva-Rook potentials is consistent with
"
model using the geometrical parameters of Rapaport
et al.
the conclusion of Ref. 49 that these effects are associated
with the pronounced deviation of these potentials from a
Each of the optical potentials was compared with the Woods-Saxon shape. It is interesting to point out that our
data by adjusting the strengths of the real and imaginary microscopic calculations with the Jeukenne, Lejeune, and
parts of the central optical potential. After making these Mahaux potential compare quite favorably with calcula-
adjustments, it was found that the agreement with the tions using global ' ' OM potentials, giving in some
measured angular distributions was reasonable, except at cases better fits to the data.
the back angles for the light nuclei (particularly Be and
C). The required normalizing parameters are within a few
percent of unity in all cases for the real potential. The
normalizing parameter for the imaginary potential exhib-
ACKNQWLEX)0 MENTS
its a mass variation that is most pronounced for the
Brieva-Rook potentials. On the other hand, the normaliz- We wish to thank Prof. F. Petrovich for continued
ing parameters for the imaginary parts of the JLM and helpful discussions concerning microscopic optical poten-
phenomenological potentials are much closer to constant tials, and we are indebted to Prof. H. V. von Geramb for
values (0.96+0.15 and 0.84+0. 10, respectively). suggesting the use of the complex wave number in the ex-
The agreement with both the angular distribution data change approximation. This was performed under the
and with measured total cross sections is better for the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by the
JLM potentials than for the Brieva-Rook. For the latter, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract
the qualitative discrepancy in fitting the back-hemisphere number W-7405-ENG-48.

J. R. Smith, Phys. Rev. 95, 730 (1954). . R. Satchler, Nucl. Phys. 68, 97 (1965).
2J. D. Seagrave, Phys. Rev. 97, 757 (1955). V. S. Nguyen, V. Regis, and R. Boucher, Comptes Rendus
3J. O. Elliot, Phys. Rev. 101, 684 (1956).
.
260, 3922 (1965).
4H. Nauta, Nucl. Phys. 2, 124 (1957). M. Conjeaud, B. Fernandez, S. Harar, J. Picard, and G.
5M. P. Nakada, J. D. Anderson, C. C. Gardner, and C. Wong, Souchere, Nucl. Phys. 62, 225 (1965).
Phys. Rev. 110, 1439 (1958). ~4G. C. Bonazzola, E. Chiavassa, and T. Bressani, Phys. Rev.
J. H. Coon, R. W. Davis, H. E. Felthauser, and D. B. 140, 835 (1965); Nucl. Phys. 68, 369 (1965).
Nicodemus, Phys. Rev. 111, 2SO (1958). 25W. J. McDonald, J. M. Robson, and R. Malcolm, Nucl. Phys.
7S. Berko, W. D. Whitehead, and B. C. Groseclose, Nucl. Phys. 75, 353 (1966).
6, 210 (1958). A. J. Frasca, R. W. Finlay, R. D. Koshel, and R. L. Cassola,
M. M. Khalelskii, Dok. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 113, 553 (1958). Phys. Rev. 144, 854 (1966); 156, 1201 (1967).
C. Saint Pierre, M. K. Machwe, and P. Lorrain, Phys. Rev. C. A. Grin, C. Joseph, J. C. Alder, B. Vaucher, and J. F.
115, 999 (1959). Loude, Helv. Phys. Acta 39, 214 (1966).
J. D. Anderson, C. C. Gardner, J. W. McClure, M. P. Nakada, 2~R. L. Clarke and W. G. Cross, Nucl. Phys. A9S, 320 (1967).
and C. Wong, Phys. Rev. 115, 1010 (1959). ~ D. Spaargaren and C. C.
Jonker, Nucl. Phys. 161, 354 (1971).
~~L. A. Rayburn, Phys. Rev. 116, 1571 (1959). 3 M. E. Gurtovoj, A. S. Kukhenko, E. P. Kadkin, B. E.
W. G. Cross, Nucl. Phys. 15, 155 (1960). Leschenko, and V. I. Strizhak, At. Energ. 30, 455 (1971).
C. J. Hudson, Jr. , W. S. Walker, and S. Berko, Phys. Rev. 128, P. Kuijper, J. C. Veefkind, and C. C. Jonker, Nucl. Phys. 181,
1271 (1962). 545 (1972).
C. Wong, J. D. Anderson, and J. W. McClure, Nucl. Phys. 33,
, 2M. Matoba, M. Hyakutake, H. Tawara, K. Tsuji, H. Hasuya-
680 (1962). ma, S. Matsuki, A. Katase, and M. Sonoda, Nucl. Phys.
~5C. Deconninck, A. Martegani, J. P. Meulders, and J. Stoquart, A204, 129 (1973).
Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles 75, 102 (1961). 33R. E. Benson, K. Rimawi, E. H. Sexton, and B. Center, Nucl.
t68. Ya Guzhovski, At. Energ. 11, 395 (1961) [Sov. J. At. Ener- Phys. 212, 147 (1973).
gy 11, 1041 (1962)]. W. P. Bucher, C. E. Hollandsworth, and J. E. Youngblood,
K. Tesch, Nucl. Phys. 37, 412 (1962)~ Phys. Lett. 588, 277 (1975).
R. W. Bauer, J. D. Anderson, and L. J. Christensen, Nucl. 35G. Haouat, J. Lachkar, J. Sigaud, Y. Patin, and F. Coyu,
Phys. 47, 241 (1963); 48, 152 (1963); A93, 673 (1967). Nucl. Sci. Eng. 65, 331 (1978).
Yu. V. Dukarevich and A. N. Dyumin, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. C. R. Gould, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 28, 1264 (1981).
—
44, 130 (1963) [Sov. Phys. JETP 17, 89 (1963)]. 3"F. Bjorklund and S. Fernbach, Phys. Rev. 109, 1295 (19S8).
R. L. Clarke, Nucl. Phys. 53, 177 (1964). F. Percy and B. Buck, Nucl. Phys. 32, 353 (1962).
P. H. Stelson, R. L. Robinson, H. J. Kim, J. Rapaport, and G. D. Wibnore and P. E. Hodgson, Nucl. Phys. 55, 673 (1964).
 TEST OF MICROSCOPIC OPTICAL MODEL POTENTIALS. . . 119

4 F. D. Becchetti, Jr. and G. W. Greenlees, Phys. Rev. 182, 5OC. Wong, S. M. Grimes, C. H. Poppe, V. R. Brown, and V. A.
1190 {1969). Madsen, Phys. Rev. C 26, 889 (1982). See Refs. 11 and 12 in
4IJ. Rapaport, V. Kulkarn, and R. W. Finlay, Nucl. Phys. this paper.
A330, 15 (1979). 5IM. Drosg, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 195, 573 (1972).
J. P. Jeukenne, A. Lejeune, and C. Mahaux, Phys. Rev. C 16, 5~S. Mellema (private communication).
80 (1977). 5~G. Bertsch, J. Borysowicz, H. McManus, and W. G. Love,
A. Lejeune, Phys. Rev. C 21, 1107 (1980). Nucl. Phys. A284, 399 (1977).
~F. A. Brieva and J. R. Rook, Nucl. Phys. A291, 299 (1977); 54C. W. Dejager, H. DeVries, and C. DeVries, At. Data Nucl.
A291, 317 (1977). Data Tables 14, 479 (1974).
45H. V. von Geramb, F. A. Brieva, and J. R. Rook, Lecture ~5H. Fiedeldey, Nucl. Phys. 77, 149 (1966).
bootes in Physics, Vol. 89, edited by H. V. von Geramb 5~D. G. Foster, Jr. and D. W. Glasgow, Phys. Rev. C 3, 576
(Springer, Berlin, 1979). (1971).
A. Lejeune and P. E. Hodgson, Nucl. Phys. A292, 301 (1978). 5~Ch. Lagrange and A. Lejeune, Phys. Rev. C 25, 2278 (1982).
4~S. Kailas, S. K. Gupta, M. K. Mehta, and Gulzar Sigh, Phys. 5~Ch. Lagrange and J. C. Brient, J. Phys. (Paris) 44, 27(1983).
Rev. C 26, 830 (1982). 5~D. J. Stubeda, M. LeMere, and Y. C. Tang, Phys. Rev. C 17,
4~F. S. Dietrich, R. W. Finlay, S. Mellema, G. Randers- 447 (1978).
Pehrson, and F. Petrovich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1629 (1983). ~oA. S. Meigooni, J. S. Petler, and R. W. Finlay, Phys. Med.
S. Mellema, R. W. Finlay, F. S. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. C 28, Biol. 29, 643 (1984).
2267 {1983). F. Petrovich (private communication).