Speaker
Description
\documentclass[aps,prc,groupedaddress,amsmath,amssymb,12pt,tightenlines]{revtex4}
\usepackage{graphics}
\usepackage{longtable}
\begin{document}
\title{Role of direct interactions in $(d,p)$ and $(d,2p)$ reactions}
\author{M.~Avrigeanu} \email{marilena.avrigeanu@nipne.ro}
\author{C.~Costache}
\author{V.~Avrigeanu}
\affiliation{Horia Hulubei National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, 077125 Bucharest-Magurele, Romania}
\maketitle
%\begin{abstract}
{\bf Abstract}
Deficiencies in describing the elastic and especially the inelastic breakup (BU) motivate the actual full parametrization of the available deuteron data [1] better than TENDL-2017 deuteron sub-library [2] based on the widely-used TALYS nuclear model code system [3]. Various merely phenomenological description of the available direct-reactions (DR) stripping $(d,p)$ experimental data are also yet adopted [4] while microscopic calculation of inclusive BU and DR cross sections ({\it e.g.}, [5,6]) are still numerically tested. On the other hand, due consideration of all elastic-breakup (EB), breakup-fusion (BF), DR, pre-equilibrium emission (PE), and evaporation from fully equilibrated compound nucleus (CN) processes ({\it e.g.}, [7]), has been found crucial [8] for a consistent analysis of the deuteron-reaction data and even high production of proton-rich nuclei [9], while insufficient treatment and separation between different reaction mechanisms such as DR and BU components [10] may be related to deviations between measurements and advanced surrogate reaction studies [11].
Consequently, elastic-scattering analysis for optical-potential validation, EB and BU parametrization [12,13] checked by microscopical Continuum-Discretized Coupled-Channels (CDCC) formalism calculations, BF enhancement of various $(d,x)$ reaction cross sections, DR results using DWBA spectroscopic factors from data analysis of available particle-emission angular distributions, as well as PE+CN statistical decay have been consistently involved within suitable account of all available excitation-function data of deuterons up to 60 MeV on $A\sim$90 nuclei. The same approach being previously involved for similar analysis for the target nuclei $^{27}$Al, $^{51,nat}$V, $^{50,52,53,54,nat}$Cr, $^{55}$Mn, $^{54,56,57,58,nat}$Fe, $^{59}$Co, $^{58,60,61,62,64,nat}$Ni, $^{63,65,nat}$Cu, and $^{93}$Nb ([14] and Refs. therein), the BU enhanced role with the target-nucleus mass/charge increase has been concerned as well as the BU dominance around the Coulomb barrier for heavy nuclei as, {\it e.g.}, $^{231}$Pa.
The overall agreement between the measured data and model calculations validates this theoretical approach while the comparison to the global predictions underlines the effects of overlooking the BF enhancement as well as the stripping and pick-up processes. This is particularly important for the $(d,p)$ and $(d,2p)$ excitation functions on target nuclei from $^{27}$Al to $^{100}$Mo, the stripping and breakup disregard leading to the apparent discrepancies. In fact, the dominant role of the stripping mechanism in $(d,p)$ reactions is taken by the BF processes for the $(d,2p)$ reactions, all of them being of interest for the evaluation of the H production ({\it e.g.}, [15]). Actually, due to the related predictive power, update of the theoretical framework of deuteron-nucleus interaction will improve the evaluation predictions for target nuclei and incident energies where data are still missing, but strongly requested by the current engineering design projects.
%\end{abstract}
\bigskip
[1] J. Engle {\it et al.}, Nuclear Data Sheets {\bf 155}, 56 (2019).
[2] A.J. Koning {\it et al.}, Nuclear Data Sheets {\bf 155}, 1 (2019).
[3] A.J. Koning, S. Hilaire, and M. C. Duijvestijn, http://www.talys.eu/home/
[4] F. T\' ark\' anyi {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 57}, 21 (2021); {\it ibid.} {\bf 57}, 223 (2021).
[5] Y.S. Neoh {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 94}, 044619 (2016).
[6] K. Ogata and K. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 94}, 051603(R) (2016).
[7] M. Avrigeanu {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 89}, 044613 (2014); {\it ibid.} {\bf 94}, 014606 (2016).
[8] V. Jha, V. Parkar, and S. Kailas, Physics Reports {\bf 845}, 1 (2020).
[9] H. Wang {\it et al.}, Communications Physics {\bf 2}, 78 (2019).
[10] M. Avrigeanu and V. Avrigeanu, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. {\bf 724}, 012003 (2016).
[11] J.J. Cowan {\it et al.}, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 93}, 015002 (2021).
[12] M. Avrigeanu {\it et al.}, Fus. Eng. Design {\bf 84}, 418 (2009).
[13] M. Avrigeanu and V. Avrigeanu, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 95}, 024607 (2017).
[14] M. Avrigeanu {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 101}, 024605 (2020).
[15] N. Zimber {\it et al.}, J. Nucl. Mat. {\bf 535}, 152160 (2020).
\vspace{1in}
\noindent
{\it This work has been partly supported by Autoritatea Nationala pentru Cercetare Stiintifica (Project PN-19060102) and carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018 and 2019-2020 under grant agreement No 633053. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission.}
\end{document}