Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71

www.elsevier.com/locate/nuclphysa

Dynamic effects of breakup on fusion reactions

of weakly bound nuclei
L.F. Canto a , P.R.S. Gomes b , J. Lubian b,∗ , L.C. Chamon c , E. Crema c
a Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, C.P. 68528, 21941-972 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
b Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Av. Litorânea, 24210-340 Niteroi, Brazil
c Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, C.P. 66318, 05389-970 São Paulo, Brazil

Received 13 November 2008; received in revised form 26 December 2008; accepted 2 February 2009
Available online 6 February 2009

Abstract
The traditional reduction methods to represent the fusion cross sections of different systems are flawed
when attempting to completely eliminate the geometrical aspects, such as the heights and radii of the barri-
ers, and the static effects associated with the excess neutrons or protons in weakly bound nuclei. We remedy
this by introducing a new dimensionless universal function, which allows the separation and disentangle-
ment of the static and dynamic aspects of the breakup coupling effects connected with the excess nucleons.
Applying this new reduction procedure to fusion data of several weakly bound systems, we find a systematic
suppression of complete fusion above the Coulomb barrier and enhancement below it. Different behaviors
are found for the total fusion cross sections. They are appreciably suppressed in collisions of neutron–halo
nuclei, while they are practically not affected by the breakup coupling in cases of stable weakly bound
nuclei.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PACS: 25.60.Pj; 25.60.Gc

Keywords: Unstable beams; Elastic scattering; Fusion; Breakup

1. Introduction

The fusion cross section in nucleus–nucleus collisions may be strongly affected by channel
coupling effects. These effects are particularly important at sub-barrier energies, where couplings

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 21 2629 5815; fax: +55 21 2629 5887.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Lubian).

0375-9474/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.02.001
52 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71

with inelastic or transfer channels may enhance the fusion cross section by orders of magni-
tude [1,2]. Until recently, most of the available information were on collisions of strongly bound
nuclei, which have very high breakup thresholds. In this way, coupling to the breakup channel
plays a small role in fusion reactions. However, the situation may be quite different in collisions
of light weakly bound nuclei, such as 6,7 Li or 9 Be, and especially in collisions of unstable pro-
jectiles, such as 6,8 He or 11 Be. In these cases, the breakup threshold is very low and this may
profoundly affect the fusion process. An important aspect of collisions of weakly bound nuclei is
that different fusion processes can take place. The simplest one is direct complete fusion (DCF),
in which the whole projectile is absorbed by the target. This process is analogous to the fusion
of strongly bound nuclei. In addition, there may be fusion following breakup. In this case, the
projectile is dissociated into two or more fragments as it approaches the target and then the frag-
ments are fully or partially absorbed. When all fragments fuse, the process is called sequential
complete fusion (SCF). When the projectile’s fragments are only partially absorbed (at least one
fragment emerges from the interaction region) the process is called incomplete fusion (ICF).
From the experimental point of view, DCF cannot be distinguished from SCF. Only their sum
(CF) can be measured. Furthermore, ICF can only be distinguished from CF when the compound
nucleus does not contain the whole projectile’s charge. For these reasons one frequently adopts
the operational definitions: CF occurs when the whole projectile’s charge is absorbed by the tar-
get and ICF takes place when the projectile’s charge is only partially absorbed. However, most
of the available data are for the total fusion (TF) cross section, which corresponds to the sum of
CF and ICF.
In collisions of weakly bound nuclei, the CF cross section may be affected by two effects.
First, the long tail of the density associated with the weakly bound nucleons reduces the fusion
barrier height and changes its curvature. Second, there may be strong dynamic effects arising
from the coupling with the breakup channel. There is no doubt that barrier lowering leads to
enhancement of fusion. However, the consequences of the latter are more subtle and are harder
to assess.
Several experimental and theoretical studies of fusion reactions with weakly bound nuclei
have been performed over the last two decades [3–5]. The main issue in these studies has been to
determine whether the weak binding leads to enhancement or hindrance of the CF cross sections.
From the experimental point of view, there is the difficulty that most experiments measure only
the TF cross section. However, in a few experiments with stable weakly bound projectiles, sepa-
rate CF and ICF cross sections were measured [6–10]. These experiments find that the CF cross
section is suppressed by 10 to 30%, as compared with the CF cross section predicted by Cou-
pled Channels (CC) calculations which do not take into account the breakup channel. A similar
comparison based on the TF cross section showed no appreciable effect [9–11]. The first theoret-
ical studies of the CF cross section arrived at conflicting conclusions [12–15], since these works
were based on very schematic models, emphasizing different aspects of the problem. More recent
calculations based on the Continuum Discretized Coupled Channels (CDCC) method [16,17] in-
dicate that the CF cross section is enhanced at energies much below the barrier and suppressed at
energies well above the barrier. The energy at which the transition between these behaviors takes
place depends on the details of the calculation.
In order to perform a systematic study of fusion cross sections in collisions of weakly bound
nuclei, it is necessary to reduce the data according to some procedure and compare them to
some benchmark. However, choosing this procedure and the appropriate benchmark are not triv-
ial tasks. Several procedures have been proposed by different authors and their conclusions may
strongly depend on details of their method. The present paper presents a solution for this prob-
 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71 53

lem, which may avoid the shortcomings of the other known reduction methods. In Section 2 we
review the different procedures available in the literature and introduce a universal fusion func-
tion (our benchmark) to which properly reduced fusion data should be compared. In Section 3 we
apply this method to fusion cross sections for a large number of systems and draw general con-
clusions about enhancement and suppression in collisions of weakly bound nuclei. In Section 4,
we discuss some relevant details of our analysis and in Section 5 we present the conclusions of
this work.

2. Methods to analyze the fusion cross section

2.1. Frequently used procedures

In order to assess the effects of breakup coupling on fusion cross sections, it is necessary to
compare the data with some benchmark cross section which is not influenced by these effects.
There are two procedures frequently followed in the literature.

2.1.1. Comparison with theoretical predictions

The first procedure is to compare the data with calculations based on theoretical models.
For this purpose, two kinds of calculations may be used. The first are optical model calculations,
restricted to the elastic channel. The second are CC calculations taking into account the couplings
with all relevant bound channels. These two procedures yield information of different kinds.
Comparing the data with results of optical model calculations, one can assess the combined
effect of couplings to bound and breakup channels. In this way, the influence of the breakup
channel is entangled with that of inelastic and transfer channels. In addition, the comparison
may also be influenced by static effects. It is well known that optical potentials for weakly bound
systems have a systematic deviation with respect to those for strongly bound ones. Owing to
the low binding energy of some nucleons, the tail of the nuclear density falls off more slowly
than in the case of a strongly bound nucleus. This leads to a reduction of the height of the
Coulomb barrier, typically VB = 1 to 3 MeV, and an increase of the fusion cross section at
sub-barrier energies. If the optical potential takes this static effect into account, the enhancement
resulting from a lower barrier should appear both in the theoretical cross section and in the data.
In this way, static effects will not lead to differences between theoretical and experimental cross
sections. However if the potential model disregards this trend, the effect of a lower barrier will
not be contained in the theoretical cross section. In this case, the comparison between theory and
experiment will indicate the global enhancement of the latter, resulting from the combination
of static and dynamic effects. To avoid this undesirable situation, it is convenient to use folding
potentials based on realistic densities.
Comparisons of the experimental fusion cross section with cross sections resulting from CC
calculations provide more exclusive information on the effects of breakup coupling. If the calcu-
lations adopt a realistic optical potential and include the couplings to all relevant bound channels,
the differences between theory and experiment can only result from breakup coupling. In Fig. 1,
we illustrate the above discussion with one example. We consider the total fusion cross section
for the 6 He + 209 Bi system. We show the data of Ref. [18] in comparison to three calculations.
The first is an optical model calculation with a potential which does not include the effect of
the two neutron halo of 6 He (dash-dotted line). We use a folding potential obtained using the
typical nuclear density of a light strongly bound projectile. It corresponds to the experimental
density of 4 He, scaled to the size of 6 He. In this case, the differences with respect to the data are
54 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71

Fig. 1. Comparison of fusion data with theoretical predictions. For details see the text.

originated from the combination of the static effect and the couplings to all bound and unbound
(breakup) channels. The comparison shows enhancement of the experimental fusion cross sec-
tion with respect to the theoretical prediction, specially at sub-barrier energies. In this region, the
enhancement is larger than one order of magnitude. The second theoretical curve (dashed-line)
corresponds to an optical model calculation using the potential of Refs. [19–21], which is a fold-
ing potential based on realistic densities, taking into account the two-neutron halo structure of
6 He. Thus, the difference between the two calculations represents the static effect of the halo.

This effect is clearly very strong. Although the optical model calculation with a realistic optical
potential, represented by the dashed-line, is closer to the data, there are still appreciable differ-
ences. It falls below the data at sub-barrier energies and overestimates the data at higher energies.
The third curve (solid line) corresponds to a CC calculation using the same optical potential, but
taking into account the channels associated with the main excitations of the 209 Bi target. That
is, the septuplet and decuplet of identified states approximated by a single level [8]. The CC
calculations were performed with the FRESCO computer code [22]. In this case, the differences
with respect to the data express the dynamic effect of coupling with the breakup channel. The
conclusion is that this coupling produces a slight enhancement of fusion below the barrier (only
at the lowest energy point) and an appreciable suppression above the barrier.
This method for analyzing the data has two disadvantages. The first is that it may lead to dif-
ferent conclusions, depending on the choice of the optical potential. We illustrate this fact with
the analysis of Kolata et al. [18] of their experimental data, which are the same data shown in our
Fig. 1. In our discussion following Fig. 1, we concluded that their data showed a weak enhance-
ment at the lowest energy point and suppression above the barrier. The conclusions of Ref. [18]
were rather different. Comparing the same data with calculations using a different optical poten-
tial, these authors concluded that fusion was strongly enhanced at sub-barrier energies. Thus, the
most reasonable procedure is to use optical potentials obtained from systematic approaches, like
double folding potentials based on realistic densities and nucleon–nucleon interactions. These
potentials should give good descriptions of data for a large number of systems. The São Paulo
(SP) potential [20] has these features. It has been used to calculate fusion cross sections for 4 He
and 6 He beams on 64 Zn, 209 Bi and 238 U targets [23]. For beams of the strongly bound 4 He pro-
jectiles, the predictions were in very good agreement with the data [18,24,25]. For these reasons,
we use the SP potential in our calculations throughout this paper. A detailed description of this
potential is presented in Section 4. However, our conclusions do not have a critical dependence
on this particular choice.
 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71 55

The second disadvantage of this method is that it does not allow for comparisons of results
between different systems. Such comparisons are very important for the purpose of investigating
the influence of the breakup threshold energy on the behavior of the fusion cross sections and
also to assess the relative importance of the Coulomb and nuclear interactions in the breakup
process.

2.1.2. Comparison of fusion data for strongly and weakly bound isotopes
The second procedure is to compare fusion data for beams of weakly bound and strongly
bound isotopes on the same target. This procedure is illustrated in Fig. 2(a) for the same sys-
tem of Fig. 1. It shows total fusion cross sections for 6 He and 4 He projectiles on a 209 Bi target.
The figure indicates that the fusion cross section for the weakly bound 6 He projectile is consis-
tently larger than the one for its strongly bound 4 He isotope. However, this does not necessarily
mean that the weak binding of 6 He causes enhancement. There are trivial geometrical factors
which contribute to this result, such as the larger size of 6 He. In order to eliminate this effect,
one should renormalize the cross section with respect to its geometrical value and the incident
energy with respect to the barrier height. In a naive picture, the radius of the potential is approx-
1/3 1/3
imated by RB = r0 (AP + AT ) and the barrier height is approximated by VB = ZP ZT e2 /RB .
Geometrical effects would then be eliminated with the renormalizations [26]
1/3 1/3
σF Ec.m. (AP + AT )
σF → 1/3 1/3
and Ec.m. → . (1)
(AP + AT )2 ZP ZT

The results of Fig. 2(a) renormalized in this way are presented in Fig. 2(b). At sub-barrier
energies, the total fusion cross section for 6 He remains larger than that for 4 He, although not
as much as in the previous case. However, for energies above the barrier, the cross sections for
the two systems are rather similar. One can then conclude that the combination of the static and
dynamic effects leads to an enhancement of σF at sub-barrier energies.
Usually, one is mainly interested in investigating the influence of breakup coupling on the
fusion cross sections. Therefore, it is convenient to present the data in a way that eliminates static
effects arising from the weakly bound nucleons. The differences in the cross section for weakly
and strongly bound isotopes could then be traced back to dynamic channel coupling effects.
For this purpose, the renormalization procedure should be carried out with realistic values of
VB and RB , obtained from double folding optical potentials with realistic densities. Reductions
of fusion data along these lines were used by several authors: σF vs. Ec.m. /VB [27–29], σF vs.
Ec.m. − VB [30] and σF /πRB2 vs. Ec.m. /VB [8,11,31–34]. The choices Ec.m. /VB and Ec.m. − VB
lead to similar conclusions in collisions of different isotopes with the same target. If one aims at
removing the static effects associated to weak binding, it is convenient to reduce both the cross
section and the collision energy. In Fig. 2(c) we show the data of the previous figures, reduced
according to the prescription

σF → σF /πRB2 ; Ec.m. → E = Ec.m. − VB . (2)

Fig. 2(c) shows no enhancement of the 6 He cross section, as compared with the one for 4 He. In
fact, the figure indicates the opposite behavior. At above barrier energies, the 6 He cross section
is suppressed with respect to that for 4 He. Therefore, the enhancement observed in the previous
figures has a purely static origin. It results from the lower barrier and the larger radius of the
potential for the 6 He + 209 Bi system.
56 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 2. Comparison of total fusion cross sections for weakly bound and strongly bound isotopes. In (a) the data are
compared directly while in (b) and (c) they are reduced according to different prescriptions. For details see the text.

2.2. The universal fusion function

In the previous sub-section we discussed different methods to reduce fusion data. The aim of
the reduction is to present the data so that the static effects associated with the details of the op-
tical potential are eliminated. In this way, the differences between cross sections for weakly and
strongly bound isotopes can be attributed exclusively to dynamic channel coupling effects. The
efficiency of a reduction procedure can thus be assessed through a comparison of the theoretical
cross sections, obtained with optical model calculations. In Fig. 3 we show theoretical fusion
cross sections for collisions of 4 He and 6 He projectiles on a 209 Bi target. The cross sections are
renormalized according to Eq. (1). The cross sections for the two systems are rather different.
At energies around the barrier, the cross sections for 6 He is appreciably larger. This is due to the
larger radius and the smaller fusion barrier for this projectile. Since the renormalization proce-
dure assumes that the barrier parameters depend exclusively on the atomic and mass numbers,
the static effects of the halo are not eliminated in Fig. 3. These effects are considered in an ap-
proximate way in the data analysis of Fig. 2(c), which adopts a more realistic dependence of RB
and VB on the nuclear properties. Fig. 3 exhibits also an interesting feature of the cross sections
for these two isotopes at lower energies: they have a crossing point below the Coulomb barrier.
Below the crossing energy, the cross section for 4 He becomes larger than that for 6 He. To explain
 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71 57

Fig. 3. Fusion cross sections obtained with single channel calculations with the SP potential.

Table 1
Barrier parameters for 4 He + 209 Bi and 6 He + 209 Bi. For details see the text.
4 He + 209 Bi 6 He + 209 Bi

RB (fm) 10.6 11.6

VB (MeV) 21.9 19.3
h̄ω (MeV) 5.6 3.9

this point, we consider the expansion of the potential barrier around its radius. To second order,
the barrier can be approximated by the inverted harmonic oscillator potential
1
V (r)  VB + μω2 (r − RB )2 . (3)
2
The frequency ω is related with the second derivative of the total potential (Coulomb + nuclear)
at the barrier radius, V  (RB ), through the relation

h̄2 |V  (RB )|
h̄ω = . (4)
μ
For the sub-barrier fusion cross section, the frequency parameter h̄ω is more relevant than
V  (RB ), since it contains the information on the mass of the tunneling system. Large values
of this parameters imply that the potential drops rapidly as the system moves away from the bar-
rier radius. Thus, the transparency of the barrier grows with h̄ω. In Table 1, we show the barrier
parameters for the 4 He + 209 Bi and 6 He + 209 Bi systems. As expected, the barrier for 6 He is
lower and has a larger radius. However, it is thicker (less transparent) than that for 4 He. Since at
very low energies, the thickness becomes more important than the barrier height, the transmis-
sion factor for 4 He becomes larger than for 6 He. For this reason, the two curves have a crossing
point below the barrier energy.
In a previous paper [35], we have adopted a new procedure to reduce fusion data. This proce-
dure, which was proposed in Ref. [36], takes into account VB , RB and also h̄ω. The cross section
and the collision energy are reduced according to the prescription
Ec.m. − VB
Ec.m. → x = , (5)
h̄ω
58 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Reduced fusion cross sections for collisions of 4 He and 6 He projectiles with a 209 Bi target. In (a), the reduction
is made according to Eq. (2). In (b), Eqs. (5) and (6) were used.

2Ec.m.
σF → F (x) = σF . (6)
h̄ωRB2
In Ref. [35] the dimensionless fusion cross sections obtained by the above renormalization pro-
cedure, F (x), were called fusion functions.
In Fig. 4, we compare the reduction method of Eq. (2) (Fig. 4(a)) with the one of Ref. [35]
(Fig. 4(b)). In the latter, x is the variable defined in Eq. (5) and Fopt (x) is the fusion function as
defined in Eq. (6), with the fusion cross section of an optical model calculation. The systems are
the same as in Figs. 2(a)–3 and the fusion cross sections are obtained through optical model cal-
culations (no channel coupling) using the SP potential. In Fig. 4(a), the reduced cross sections for
the two isotopes are rather similar at near barrier energies. However, they are very different below
the barrier. The difference arises from the different values of barrier curvature parameters, given
in Table 1, which this reduction method does not take into account. On the other hand, the fusion
functions for these isotopes (Fig. 4(b)) are very close. Similar results were obtained for other
families of isotopes on different targets, including other halo isotopes (see Fig. 1 of Ref. [35]).
Therefore, the reduction method of Ref. [35] is more convenient to investigate dynamic effects
of breakup coupling.
The advantages of using fusion functions appear even more clearly when one wants to com-
pare fusion cross sections for systems with very different Coulomb barriers. This is illustrated in
Fig. 5, with a simple example. We compare fusion cross sections obtained with single-channel
calculations for the 16 O + 209 Bi and 40 Ca + 209 Bi systems. For this illustration, we leave out chan-
nel couplings. The fusion data are reduced according to the prescriptions: (a) Ec.m. → Ec.m. /VB ,
σF → σF /πRB2 , (b) Ec.m. → E = Ec.m. − VB , σF → σF /πRB2 , and in (c) we use fusion func-
tions. Note that although the procedures of (a) and (b) are similar when one compares data for
two isotopes, they are rather different for systems with different Coulomb barriers. We notice that
in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) the curves for the two systems are very different. This indicates that the
reduction method could not eliminate the differences associated with the static effects of the bare
optical potentials. In (c) the situation is rather different. The static effects were fully eliminated
and the two curves are very close.
 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71 59

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 5. Comparison of fusion data for two systems with very different Coulomb barriers. In (a) and (b), the data were
reduced according to procedures usually found in the literature. In (c), we use fusion functions.

The reduction method of Eqs. (5) and (6) is suggested by Wong’s formula for the fusion
cross section [37]. Approximating the barrier by a parabola and neglecting the variation of the
barrier radius with angular momentum, Wong obtained for the fusion cross section the analytic
expression
  
h̄ω 2π(E − VB )
σFW = RB2 ln 1 + exp . (7)
2E h̄ω
Using this approximation in Eq. (6) one gets
 
F0 (x) = ln 1 + exp(2πx) . (8)
Note that the above fusion function is a general function of the dimensionless variable x, F0 (x),
which does not depend on the system. For this reason, it was called by Universal Fusion Function
(UFF) in Ref. [35]. It is interesting to compare the UFF with optical fusion functions, Fopt (x).
opt
These functions are obtained through the use of optical model fusion cross sections, σF , in
Eq. (6). It is clear that whenever Wong’s approximation is valid, Fopt (x) is given by the UFF. In
this way, data for different systems can be compared directly and deviations from the UFF can
be attributed to dynamic channel coupling effects.
Although fusion functions are a convenient reduction method for the purpose of comparing
different systems, their use depends on the validity of Wong’s approximation. It is well known
60 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71

Fig. 6. Comparison of the UFF with optical fusion functions for different systems.

that this approximation may be inaccurate at sub-barrier energies. In fact, the limitation depends
on the size of the system and on how much below the barrier the collision energy is. The validity
of this approximation is studied in Fig. 6, for several systems. We consider values of x in the
range −1 < x < 1. Since typically h̄ω is of the order of 4 MeV, according to the definition of
Eq. (5), this interval corresponds to energies in the range VB − 4 MeV  Ec.m.  VB + 4 MeV.
Since at the lowest energies in this range the cross sections drop nearly three orders of magnitude
below their values at the barrier, this study covers most of the available data on sub-barrier
fusion involving light projectiles. There is a clear correlation between the accuracy of Wong’s
approximation and the system size, which we give in terms of the product ZP ZT . For ZP ZT 
500, the approximation is accurate in the whole energy range of this study. In this way, the
UFF can be used as a benchmark to assess the influence of channel coupling on the fusion of
these systems. For this purpose, one should evaluate the experimental fusion function, Fexp (x),
inserting the experimental fusion cross section in Eq. (6), and then compare it to the UFF.
Using the UFF to investigate the role of breakup coupling has two difficulties. The first is
that Wong’s approximation is inaccurate in many important situations, e.g. sub-barrier fusion
in 4,6 He + 238 U collisions (see Fig. 6(c)). The second is that comparisons of Fexp (x) with the
UFF can only show the global influence of channel coupling on the fusion cross sections. The
influence of breakup appears entangled with that of bound channels. However, these problems
can be avoided with the introduction of a modified experimental fusion function, F̄exp (x), in
which the inaccuracies of the Wong’s formula and deviations arising from the coupling to bound
channels are compensated. It is defined as
σFW
F̄exp (x) = Fexp (x) , (9)
σFCC
where σFW is Wong’s cross section (Eq. (7)) and σFCC is the fusion cross section of a coupled-
channel calculation which includes all relevant bound channels. Note that, with the definition of
Eq. (9), F̄exp (x) is identical to the UFF in the ideal case where all channel coupling effects are
contained in σFCC .
 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71 61

Fig. 7. Comparison of the UFF with experimental fusion functions for several systems. The data used to evaluate the
fusion functions are from: Ref. [38] ((a) and (c)), Refs. [23,39–41] (b), and Ref. [42] (d). For more details see the text.

The use of F̄exp to analyze fusion data is illustrated in Fig. 7, where fusion functions for
several systems are compared with the UFF. We chose examples where the fusion cross sections
are reasonably described by CC calculations. The solid line is the UFF, the solid circles are
experimental fusion functions generated directly from the data (Eq. (6)) and the open squares are
the experimental fusion function renormalized according to Eq. (9). In (a) and (c), the channels
included in the CC calculations are the same as in Ref. [38], in (b) we included the septuplet and
decuplet of identified states approximated by a single level [8] for 209 Bi and in (d) we included
the 3− and the 5− excitations of 208 Pb target, using the parameters of Ref. [42]. One notices that
Fexp is quite different from the UFF, for all the systems considered in the figure. The difference
is specially large in the case of 16 O + 154 Sm, owing to the strong coupling with the states in
the 154 Sm rotational band. On the other hand, F̄exp is always very close to the UFF. This is not
surprising since CC calculations give reasonable descriptions of the fusion cross sections for
these systems.
Fusion functions may be very useful to analyze fusion data of weakly bound systems. If one
builds F̄exp using a coupled-channels calculation which includes all relevant bound channels, the
differences between F̄exp and the UFF can be attributed to the coupling with the breakup channel.
In this way, the influence of this channel in the fusion cross sections can be assessed.

3. Applications

We now use the method of the previous section to analyze fusion cross sections for several
light weakly bound projectiles, in collisions with heavy targets. In our calculations we employ
the SP potential as the bare projectile-target interaction. This potential is based on the double-
folding model, using a finite-range effective nucleon–nucleon interaction and a systematic study
62 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71

Table 2
Barrier parameters and channels included in the CC calculations for several systems.
System ZP ZT RB (fm) VB (MeV) h̄ω (MeV) Channels
6 Li + 16 O 24 7.9 4.00 2.5 g.s.
4 He + 27 Al 26 7.5 4.6 3.3 g.s.
6 He + 27 Al 26 8.6 4.0 2.3 g.s.
6 Li + 27 Al 39 8.3 6.2 2.8 g.s.
7 Li + 27 Al 39 8.5 6.1 2.6 g.s.
9 Be + 27 Al 52 8.5 8.1 2.8 2+
1 (T)
4 He + 59 Co 54 8.3 9.3 4.3 g.s.
4 He + 63 Cu 58 8.5 9.2 4.2 g.s.
4 He + 64 Zn 60 8.5 9.5 4.3 g.s.
6 He + 64 Zn 60 9.5 8.4 2.9 g.s.
6 Li + 59 Co 87 9.0 12.8 3.7 g.s.
7 Li + 59 Co 87 9.2 12.6 3.4 g.s.
6 Li + 64 Zn 90 9.2 13.1 3.7 g.s.
7 Li + 64 Zn 90 9.4 12.8 3.4 g.s.
16 O + 27 Al 104 8.7 15.9 3.1 g.s.
9 Be + 64 Zn 120 9.4 17.0 3.5 g.s.
4 He + 209 Bi 166 10.6 21.2 5.6 see text
6 He + 209 Bi 166 11.6 19.3 3.9 see text
4 He + 238 U 184 10.9 22.9 5.7 2+ +
1 to 61 (T)
6 He + 238 U 184 11.9 20.9 4.0 2+ +
1 to 61 (T)
6 Li + 144 Sm 186 10.5 23.8 4.5 g.s.
7 Li + 144 Sm 186 10.7 23.5 4.1 g.s.
6 Li + 208 Pb 246 11.3 29.4 4.8 g.s.
7 Li + 208 Pb 246 11.4 29.0 4.4 3− − −
1 51 (T); 1/2 (P)
9 Be + 144 Sm 248 10.7 31.1 4.2 g.s.
6 Li + 209 Bi 249 11.3 29.8 4.8 3− −
1 51 (T)
− −
7 Li + 209 Bi 249 11.5 29.4 4.4 31 51 (T); 1/2− (P)
6 Li + 238 U 276 11.6 32.2 4.9 g.s.
7 Li + 238 U 276 11.8 31.7 4.5 2+ + −
1 to 61 (T); 1/2 (P)
9 Be + 208 Pb − −
328 11.5 38.5 4.4 31 51 (T)
9 Be + 209 Bi 332 11.5 39.0 4.5 3− −
1 51 (T)
10 Be + 209 Bi 332 11.7 38.6 4.2 3− −
1 1 (T)
5
11 Be + 209 Bi − −
332 11.8 38.2 4.0 31 51 (T)
9 Be + 238 U 368 11.8 42.1 4.6 2+ +
1 to 61 (T)
16 O + 144 Sm 496 10.9 61.4 4.4 21 31 (T); 3−
+ −
1 (P)
16 O + 154 Sm 496 11.0 60.4 4.3 2+
1 to 8+ −
1 (T) ; 31 (P)
16 O + 208 Pb 656 11.7 76.0 4.6 3−
1
−
51 (T)
17 F + 208 Pb 738 11.6 85.6 4.8 3−
1 5−
1 (T)
19 F + 208 Pb 738 11.8 84.5 4.5 3−
1 5−
1 (T)
40 Ca + 144 Sm 1240 11.5 145.0 4.4 g.s
32 S + 154 Sm 1984 11.5 116.2 4.3 2+
1 to 8+ −
1 (T); 31 (P)

of nuclear densities. In Section 4, we present the details of the SP potential and discuss the
sensitivity of our results to the choice of its parameters.
In Table 2 we give the barrier parameters corresponding to the SP potential for the systems
considered in this paper and some other weakly bound systems for which data are available in
 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71 63

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Comparisons of F̄exp based on CF data with the UFF. The results are shown in (a) linear and (b) logarithmic
scales. The data are from Refs. [6–8] (6,7 Li + 209 Bi, 9 Be + 208 Pb), [11,43] (9 Be + 209 Bi) and [44] (7 Li, 7 Be + 238 U).

the literature. We also indicate the channels included in the CC calculations used to obtain the
renormalized cross section, F̄exp (see Eq. (9)). Channels corresponding to target and projectile
excitations are respectively denoted by (T) and (P). In the cases of systems not studied in the
present work or systems for which we have performed only single channel calculations, the
channel column contains only the ground state (g.s.).
In our study, we consider CF and TF data separately. First, in Fig. 8 we compare the UFF
with the fusion functions F̄exp obtained from the CF fusion data available in the literature. For a
clear view of the behaviors of the fusion functions above and below the barrier (VB corresponds
to x = 0), the results are displayed in linear and logarithmic scales. Inspecting Fig. 8(a), we
conclude that the data for the 6,7 Li + 209 Bi [6,8] and 9 Be + 208 Pb [7,8] systems at above-barrier
energies are appreciably suppressed, as compared to the UFF. The suppression corresponds to
multiplying the experimental fusion function by the constant factor 0.7. Actually, one can observe
that the attenuation factor is slightly larger for 6 Li + 209 Bi than for 7 Li + 209 Bi, as observed in
Refs. [7,8], where it is pointed out that the smaller the breakup threshold energy, the larger is
the CF suppression. For the 7 Be, 7 Li + 238 U systems, similar results are observed [44]. In the
case of 9 Be + 209 Bi, F̄exp is also smaller than the UFF [11,43]. However, the reduction of F̄exp is
less pronounced and the suppression factor oscillates along the data points. The reasons for these
differences are unclear, since this system is rather similar to 9 Be + 208 Pb. At sub-barrier energies
(see Fig. 8(b)), the experimental fusion functions are systematically larger than the UFF. It should
be remarked that the authors of Refs. [6–8] find no significant enhancement in their data. The
reason they reach a different conclusion is that they include projectile’s resonances in their CC
calculations. In this way, the differences between theory and experiment should be attributed to
direct breakup. Since long lived resonances act like a bound state, these couplings may produce
large enhancements of fusion. We do not include projectile’s resonances in the CC calculations
used to renormalize the fusion functions. In this way, their effects will emerge in the comparison
of Fig. 8(b). Therefore, the present work assesses the effects of both direct and resonant breakup
on the fusion cross sections. In Refs. [6–8], the comparisons between data and theory point out
the effects of direct breakup only.
We now consider fusion functions obtained from TF data. In this case the data include CF
events and also fusion of one of the charged fragments following projectile’s breakup. For reasons
that will become clear later in this section, we postpone the discussion of data for projectiles with
64 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71

(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Same as Fig. 8 but for TF data, excluding neutron halo systems. The data are from Refs. [6,8] (9 Be + 208 Pb),
[11,43] (9 Be + 209 Bi) [45] (17 F + 208 Pb) and [46] (9 Be + 27 Al).

a neutron halo. The results for stable and proton halo systems are shown in Fig. 9, in linear and
logarithmic scales. Results for one light system [46] are also included. At above-barrier energies,
the experimental fusion functions are very close to the UFF. One concludes that the breakup
process does not significantly affect the TF cross section. This means that fusion of one of the
fragments with the target is comparable with fusion of the whole projectile. Qualitatively, this
condition is met when the tunneling factors for the fragment and projectile are similar. In this way,
the reduction of the CF cross section due to loss of flux in the incident channel is compensated
by the ICF, and the TF cross section remains roughly the same. At sub-barrier energies, the
experimental fusion functions are strongly enhanced, as compared to the UFF. As expected, the
enhancement is larger than in the case of CF, since the cross sections contains also contributions
from incomplete fusion.
Finally, we look at fusion data in collisions of nuclei presenting neutron halos. In this case,
the cross sections include fusion of the projectile and also of the charged fragment, produced
in the breakup process. Since this fragment contains the whole projectile’s charge, these events
are not distinguished in the experiment. However, they are formally different. For this reason,
we classify this cross section as TF. In Fig. 10, we show fusion functions for the 6 He + 209 Bi,
6 He + 238 U and 11 Be + 209 Bi systems. The data are respectively from Refs. [18,24,43]. Inspecting

Fig. 10(a) we conclude that the results are rather similar to the ones for CF of stable weakly bound
projectiles, shown in Fig. 8(a). In the cases of 6 He + 209 Bi and 6 He + 238 U, the suppression
can be approximately represented by the same constant factor of 0.7. The experimental fusion
function for the 11 Be + 238 U system also shows suppression. As for the other two systems, it can
be approximately fitted by 0.7 × UFF. However, the data points oscillates, and the dispersion
around this line is larger.
The fusion functions at sub-barrier energies can be observed in Fig. 10(b). At these energies
there are only a few data points and the situation is unclear. In the case of 6 He + 209 Bi, there is
only one point just below the barrier and at this point the experimental fusion function is slightly
above the UFF. In the case of 6 He + 238 U, there is only one point. This point is well below the
barrier and the result is close to the UFF. However, its error bar is large. The only experimen-
tal indication of enhancement below the barrier is in the data for 11 Be + 209 Bi. However, this
experiment has a poorer energy resolution so that their results are less reliable in this energy
range.
 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71 65

(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Study of TF cross sections for neutron halo systems. We compare F̄exp based on TF data with the UFF. The
results are shown in linear (a) and logarithmic scales. The data are from Refs. [24] (6 He + 238 U), [18] (6 He + 209 Bi)
and [43] (11 Be + 209 Bi).

We finish this section discussing an important point about the results for halo nuclei. Although
our analysis for these systems are based on TF cross sections, their fusion functions exhibit
the same behavior of Fig. 8, where fusion functions for stable weakly bound projectiles were
determined from CF cross sections. This behavior can be explained as follows. In collisions of a
projectile with a neutron halo, the breakup process produces a charged fragment, containing the
whole projectile’s charge, and the halo neutrons. For example, in the case of 6 He, the breakup
process produces a 4 He fragment and two neutrons. The measured fusion cross section is then
the sum of the cross sections for the incident projectile and for the 4 He fragment. Therefore, in
this sense, 6 He fusion data is analogous to TF data in collisions of 6,7 Li or 9 Be projectiles. In
this way, one would expect to find no suppression in the fusion functions at energies above the
barrier. Instead, in Fig. 10(a) the fusion functions are suppressed as in the case of CF of stable
projectiles. The reason for this behavior is that the fusion probability for the 4 He fragment is
much smaller than that for the projectile. This is because the 4 He fragment carries roughly 2/3
of the incident energy and the whole projectile’s charge. In this way, the fragment encounters
a similar barrier while its energy is lower. In fact, the barrier for 4 He is higher, since it does
not have a halo. This can be seen in Table 1, where the barrier parameters for 6 He + 209 Bi and
for 4 He + 209 Bi are compared. It shows that the barrier for 4 He is 2.6 MeV higher than that for
6 He. Owing to the barrier heights and the incident particle energies in each case, the tunneling

probability for the fragment is much smaller than that for the incident projectile. Therefore, the
CF and TF cross sections are about the same. We point out that this analysis does not apply for
proton–halo systems. In these cases, the fragment produced in the breakup process has a lower
charge, without appreciable variation of the barrier radius. Thus the fusion barrier tends to be
lower. In this way, the ICF cross section is high and it compensates for the suppression of the CF.
For this reason, no suppression is expected in the TF cross section.

4. Sensitivity of the results to changes in the parameters of the bare potential

We believe that the readers might want to know the main characteristics of the double folding
potential used in the present work, as well as the sensitivity of the results to variations in its
66 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71

parameters. In this section we describe briefly the São Paulo (SP) potential and show the influence
of variations of its diffuseness on the results presented in the previous sections.
The barrier parameters RB , VB and h̄w used in our method are obtained from the SP potential,
which is given by the expression

VSP (R) = VF (R)e−4v

2 /c2
.
Above, VF (R) is the double-folding potential and v is the local projectile-target relative velocity.
For energies and radii around the barrier (E ≈ VB and R ≈ RB ) the relative velocity is negligible
and VSP (R) reduces to VF (R) (see, e.g. [47]). Adopting the zero-range approach [20], the folding
potential is obtained from the matter densities of the collision partners through the equation

VF (R) = V0 ρ1 (r1 )ρ2 (r2 )δ(R − r1 + r2 ) d r1 d r2 , (10)

with V0 = −456 MeV fm3 . We distinguish the matter density of the nucleus from the correspond-
ing nucleon density by taking into account the size of the nucleon. The zero-range approach,
Eq. (10), is in fact equivalent [20] to the more usual procedure of folding the nucleon densi-
ties of the nuclei with a finite range effective nucleon–nucleon interaction (as, for instance, the
well-known M3Y). For the nuclear distributions, we have assumed the systematics presented in
Ref. [20], in which the matter densities are associated to Fermi distributions with diffuseness
a = 0.56 fm and radius given by
R0 = 1.31A1/3 − 0.84 fm. (11)
This systematics is based on experimental charge distributions, obtained from electron scattering,
and on theoretical densities for a large number of heavy nuclei.
The six-dimensional integral of the folding potential can easily be calculated through the
Fourier transforms [20], using standard numerical procedures. On the other hand, within the zero
range approach, an analytical expression for the folding potential has been provided [20]. At
R > R01 + R02 , one obtains:
VF (R) ≈ V0 ρ01 ρ02 πa 2 R(1 + s/a)e−s/a
 
1 + τ + τ 2 ζ /3 + η + (η + 1/2)e−s/a
× . (12)
1 + ζτ
Above, s = R − R01 − R02 , R = 2R01 R02 /(R01 + R02 ), τ = s/R, ζ = R/(R01 + R02 ), η = a/R,
and a is the diffusivity of the Fermi parametrization of the densities (assumed to be the same for
both nuclei). Considering the normalization of the densities one obtains the relation [20]
A
ρ0 ≈ . (13)
77 a 2 11 a 3
3 πR0 (1 + 8 R 2 +
4 3
24 R 3 )
0 0

For nuclei with different diffuseness parameters, Eq. (12) is still a good approximation for the
folding potential if one replaces
a → aeff = (a1 + a2 )/2. (14)
Frequently, the nuclear potential is parametrized by the Woods–Saxon shape
 
VN (R) = V0p / 1 + e(R−R0p )/ap . (15)
Indeed, at the surface region the folding potential can be approximated as in Eq. (15), with
 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71 67

Fig. 11. Matter distribution for several systems. The solid lines represent results from the systematics of Ref. [20]. The
dotted lines are the experimental charge distributions obtained from electron scattering [48], re-normalized to the total
number of nucleons, A. The dashed line in the case of 4 He was obtained by folding the nucleon distributions extracted
from high energy proton scattering data [49] with the intrinsic matter distribution of the nucleon.

R0p = R01 + R02 , (16)

 
VF (R) a
ap  − a 1+ . (17)
dVF /dR s
Typically, the barrier radius corresponds to s  3.5 fm. Since a = 0.56 fm, from Eq. (17) we get
the diffuseness parameter of the nuclear potential,
ap = 0.65 fm. (18)
The depth V0p should be adjusted so that the potential of Eq. (15) reproduces VF (R) (Eq. (12))
in the barrier region, that is, R ≈ R01 + R02 + 3.5 fm.
The systematic treatment of matter densities plays an important role in our method, allowing
realistic determinations of the barrier parameters. In our calculations, the nuclear radii are given
by Eq. (11) and the diffusivity of the nuclear densities is always taken to be a = 0.56 fm. The only
exception is the 4 He, which has a very unusual behavior. In this case, the matter distribution is
assumed to have the same shape as the charge density, which is obtained from electron scattering
experiments [48]. Since the systematic study of Ref. [20] was based on results for heavy nuclei,
it is important to assess its validity for lighter nuclei, like 6 Li, and exotic isotopes, like 6 He.
This is done in Fig. 11, where we compare densities given by the systematics with experimental
ones. We consider the light nuclei: 6 Li and 4,6,8 He. In the 6 Li and 4 He cases, the experimental
densities are the charge densities of Ref. [48], normalized to A. As these nuclei have the same
number of protons and neutrons, assuming that proton and neutron have the same distribution
is a reasonable procedure. For 4,6,8 He, the experimental densities were obtained by folding the
corresponding nucleon distributions, derived from high energy proton scattering [49], with the
intrinsic matter density of the nucleon [20]. The radial region where the density is important to
define the barrier parameters is r ≈ R0 + 1.5 fm, which is indicated by arrows in Fig. 11. In
this region, the distributions obtained from the systematics are quite similar to the experimental
68 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71

Table 3
Influence of fluctuations of aeff on the barrier parameters for the 9 Be + 208 Pb system. In the second, third and fourth
lines, a+ and a− are respectively effective diffusivities when one adds or subtract σa in the diffusivity of one of the
collision partners in Eq. (14).
aeff (fm) RB (fm) VB (MeV) h̄ω (MeV)
ā 11.50 38.50 4.43
a+ 11.55 38.19 4.42
a− 11.40 38.80 4.59

Fig. 12. Influence of fluctuations of a on the experimental fusion function for the 9 Be + 208 Pb system. The up and down
symbols represent the results obtained with a+ and a− , respectively. For details see the text.

ones, except for 4 He. On the other hand, in this case the densities obtained by the two different
experimental techniques agree very well.
In fact, Eq. (11) and the diffuseness value a = 0.56 fm represent the average behavior of
the density parameters. Fluctuations of R0 and a relative to these average values are observed
along the table of nuclides. In Ref. [20] these variations were analyzed and standard deviations
of σR0 = 0.07 fm and σa = 0.025 fm were found. Clearly, it is important to evaluate how these
fluctuations in the density parameters could affect the present results. In that study, it was demon-
strated that the potential strength at the barrier region is much more sensitive to variations in the
diffuseness parameter than in the radius. The conclusion of the present work is that in collisions
of light projectiles with heavy targets, variations of the diffuseness parameter produce quite small
changes in the results of the barrier parameters. To illustrate the situation, we consider as an ex-
ample the 9 Be + 208 Pb complete fusion data presented according to our prescription. Table 3
shows values of the barrier parameters for aeff = ā = 0.56 fm and aeff = a± . In our notation,
a+ (a− ) is given by Eq. (14) with the diffusivity of one of the collision partners increased (de-
creased) by σa . We see that for light systems the barrier parameters do not show significant
variations as the diffuseness fluctuates.
The influence of the above discussed variations on the experimental fusion functions is illus-
trated in Fig. 12. Although the influence is not negligible, it is not strong enough to affect the
main conclusions of the present work.
 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71 69

5. Conclusions

We have discussed the basic procedure to analyze fusion cross sections of weakly bound
systems: (i) comparison of fusion data with theoretical predictions and, (ii) comparison of fu-
sion data for weakly bound isotopes with the corresponding data of strongly bound ones. Since
the fundamental question is to determine the role of the breakup channel in collisions of weakly
bound nuclei, it is necessary to reduce the data so that trivial geometrical factors and static effects
arising from the nuclear density profiles are eliminated. We then considered the usual prescrip-
tions for data reduction available in the literature and showed that they have shortcomings that
may lead to inconsistent conclusions. To handle this situation, we have introduced a new reduc-
tion method which overcomes these shortcomings [35]. Furthermore, within our new reduction
method it is possible to disentangle the dynamic effects associated with couplings to bound and
breakup channels. In this method, cross sections renormalized with respect to predictions of CC
calculations, including all relevant bound channels, are compared with a universal function. This
comparison indicates whether the fusion cross section is enhanced, hindered or is not affected by
the breakup coupling.
Our technique has been applied to investigate the behaviors of the CF and TF cross sections in
collisions of weakly bound nuclei with heavy targets, at energies above and below the Coulomb
barrier. This study comprises a large number of systems of weakly bound projectiles, both stable
and radioactive, and heavy targets. We concluded that the CF cross section is systematically
suppressed at energies above the Coulomb barrier. The suppression is of about 30% of the CF
cross section. The influence of the breakup coupling on the TF cross section at above-barrier
energies depends on the nature of the projectile. It has no appreciable effect in collisions of
stable weakly bound projectiles. On the other hand, in collisions of neutron–halo nuclei, the TF
cross sections are suppressed by about 30%, similarly to the case of CF of stable weakly bound
nuclei. At sub-barrier energies, both the CF and the TF cross sections are enhanced, owing to
the coupling with the breakup channel. The enhancement is stronger in the case of TF. The short
version of some aspects of the current study has already appeared in the literature [35].

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the FAPERJ, CNPq, FAPESP and the PRONEX.

References

[1] M. Beckerman, J. Ball, H. Enge, M. Salomaa, A. Sperduto, S. Gazes, A. DiRienzo, J.D. Molitoris, Phys. Rev. C 23
(1981) 1581.
[2] W. Reisdorf, F.P. Hessberger, K.D. Hildenbrand, S. Hofmann, G. Münzenberg, K.-H. Schmidt, J.H.R. Schneider,
W.F.W. Schneider, K. Sümmerer, G. Wirth, J.V. Kratz, K. Schlitt, Nucl. Phys. A 614 (1997) 112.
[3] L.F. Canto, P.R.S. Gomes, R. Donangelo, M. Hussein, Phys. Rep. 424 (2006) 1.
[4] J.F. Liang, C. Signorini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 14 (2006) 1121.
[5] N. Keeley, R. Raabe, N. Alamanos, J. Sida, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 59 (2007) 579.
[6] M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde, R.D. Butt, R.M. Anjos, A.C. Berriman, N. Carlin, P.R.S. Gomes, C.R. Morton, J.O.
Newton, A. Szanto de Toledo, K. Hagino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 1395.
[7] M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde, K. Hagino, S.B. Moraes, P.R.S. Gomes, R.M. Anjos, R.D. Butt, A.C. Berriman, N. Carlin,
C.R. Morton, J.O. Newton, A. Szanto de Toledo, Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 041602(R).
[8] M. Dasgupta, P.R.S. Gomes, D. Hinde, S. Moraes, R. Anjos, A. Berriman, R. Butt, N. Carlin, J. Lubian, C. Morton,
J. Newton, A.S. de Toledo, Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 024606.
70 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71

[9] P.R.S. Gomes, I. Padrón, E. Crema, O. Capurro, J. Niello, G. Martí, A. Arazi, M. Trotta, J. Lubian, M. Ortega, A.
Pacheco, M. Rodriguez, J. Testoni, R. Anjos, L.C. Chamon, M. Dasgupta, D. Hinde, K. Hagino, Phys. Lett. B 634
(2006) 356.
[10] P.R.S. Gomes, I. Padrón, E. Crema, O. Capurro, J. Niello, A. Arazi, G. Martí, J. Lubian, M. Trotta, A. Pacheco,
J. Testoni, M. Rodriguez, M. Ortega, L.C. Chamon, R. Anjos, R. Veiga, M. Dasgupta, D. Hinde, K. Hagino, Phys.
Rev. C 73 (2006) 064606.
[11] P.R.S. Gomes, R.M. Anjos, J. Lubian, Braz. J. Phys. 34 (2004) 737.
[12] M.S. Hussein, M.P. Pato, L.F. Canto, R. Donangelo, Phys. Rev. C 46 (1992) 377.
[13] L.F. Canto, R. Donangelo, M.S. Hussein, M. Pato, Nucl. Phys. A 542 (1992) 131.
[14] N. Takigawa, M. Kuratani, H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. C 47 (1993) R2470.
[15] C.H. Dasso, A. Vitturi, Phys. Rev. C 50 (1994) R12.
[16] A. Diaz-Torres, I.J. Thompson, Phys. Rev. C 65 (2002) 024606.
[17] K. Hagino, A. Vitturi, C.H. Dasso, S.M. Lenzi, Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000) 037602.
[18] J.J. Kolata, V. Guimarães, D. Peterson, P. Santi, R. White-Stevens, P.A. De Young, G.F. Peaslee, B. Hughey, B.
Atalla, M. Kern, P.L. Jolivette, J.A. Zimmerman, M.Y. Lee, F.D. Becchetti, E.F. Aguilera, E. Martinez-Quiroz, J.D.
Hinnefeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4580.
[19] L.C. Chamon, D. Pereira, M.S. Hussein, M.A.C. Ribeiro, D. Galetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 5218.
[20] L.C. Chamon, B.V. Carlson, L.R. Gasques, D. Pereira, C. De Conti, M.A.G. Alvarez, M.S. Hussein, M.A. Cândido
Ribeiro, E.S. Rossi Jr., C.P. Silva, Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 014610.
[21] M. Alvarez, L.C. Chamon, M. Hussein, D. Pereira, L. Gasques, E. Rossi, C. Silva, Nucl. Phys. A 723 (2003) 93.
[22] I.J. Thompson, Comput. Phys. Rep. 7 (1988) 167.
[23] E. Crema, P.R.S. Gomes, L.C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. C 75 (2007) 037601.
[24] R. Raabe, J.L. Sida, J.L. Chavet, N. Alamanos, C. Angulo, J.M. Casandjian, S. Courtin, A. Drouart, C. Durand, P.
Figuera, A. Gillibert, S. Heinrich, C. Jouanne, V. Lapoux, A. Lépine, A. Masumarra, L. Nalpas, D. Pierroutsakou,
M. Romoli, K. Rusek, M. Trotta, Nature 431 (2004) 823.
[25] A. Di Pietro, P. Figuera, F. Amorini, C. Angulo, G. Cardella, S. Cherubini, T. Davinson, D. Leanza, J. Lu, H.
Mahmud, M. Milin, A. Musumarra, A. Ninane, M. Papa, M.G. Pellegriti, R. Raabe, F. Rizzo, C. Ruiz, A.C. Shotter,
N. Soic, S. Tudisco, L. Weissman, Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 044613.
[26] P.R.S. Gomes, J. Lubian, I. Padrón, R.M. Anjos, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 017601.
[27] C. Beck, F.A. Souza, N. Rowley, S.J. Sanders, N. Aissaoui, E.E. Alonso, P. Bednarczyk, N. Carlin, S. Courtin, A.
Diaz-Torres, A. Dummer, F. Haas, A. Hachem, K. Hagino, F. Hoellinger, R.V.F. Janssens, N. Kintz, R.L. Neto, E.
Martin, M.M. Moura, M.G. Munhoz, P. Papka, M. Rousseau, A.S. i Zafra, O. Stezowski, A.A. Suaide, E.M. Szanto,
A.S. de Toledo, A. Szilner, J. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. C 67 (2003) 054602.
[28] A. Diaz-Torres, I.J. Thompson, C. Beck, Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 044607.
[29] N. Alamanos, A. Pakou, V. Lapoux, J.L. Sida, M. Trotta, Phys. Rev. C 65 (2002) 054606.
[30] N. Keeley, J. Cook, K. Kemper, B. Roeder, W. Weintraub, F. Maréchal, K. Rusek, Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 054601.
[31] I. Padrón, P.R.S. Gomes, R.M. Anjos, J. Lubian, C. Muri, J.J.S. Alves, G.V. Marti, M. Ramirez, A.J. Pacheco, O.A.
Capurro, J.O. Fernández Niello, J.E. Testoni, D. Abriola, M.R. Spinella, Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 044608.
[32] C. Signorini, Nucl. Phys. A 693 (2001) 190.
[33] P.R.S. Gomes, J. Lubian, R. Anjos, Nucl. Phys. A 734 (2004) 233.
[34] R.M. Anjos, C. Muri, J. Lubian, P.R.S. Gomes, I. Padrón, J.J.S. Alves, G.V. Martí, J.O. Fernández Niello, A.J.
Pacheco, O.A. Capurro, D. Abriola, J.E. Testoni, M. Ramirez, R. Liguori Neto, N. Added, Phys. Lett. B 534 (2002)
45.
[35] L.F. Canto, P.R.S. Gomes, J. Lubian, L.C. Chamon, E. Crema, J. Phys. G 36 (2009) 015109.
[36] L.R. Gasques, L.C. Chamon, D. Pereira, M.A.G. Alvarez, E.S. Rossi, C.P. Silva, B.V. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C 69
(2004) 034603.
[37] C.Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31 (1973) 766.
[38] J.R. Leigh, M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde, J.C. Mein, C.R. Morton, R.C. Lemmon, J.P. Lestone, J.O. Newton, H. Timmer,
J.X. Wei, N. Rowley, Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 3151.
[39] E. Kelly, E. Segre, Phys. Rev. 75 (1949) 999.
[40] W. Ramler, J. Wing, D. Henderson, J. Huizenga, Phys. Rev. 114 (1959) 154.
[41] A. Barnett, J. Lilley, Phys. Rev. C 9 (1974) 2010.
[42] C.R. Morton, A.C. Berriman, M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde, J.O. Newton, K. Hagino, I.J. Thompson, Phys. Rev. C 60
(1999) 044608.
[43] C. Signorini, Z.H. Liu, Z.C. Li, K.E.G. Löbner, L. Müller, M. Ruan, K. Rudolph, F. Soramel, C. Zotti, A. And-
drighetto, L. Stroe, A. Vitturi, H.Q. Zhang, Euro. Phys. J. A 5 (1999) 7.
 L.F. Canto et al. / Nuclear Physics A 821 (2009) 51–71 71

[44] R. Raabe, C. Angulo, J. Charvet, C. Jouanne, L. Nalpas, P. Figuera, D. Pierroutsakou, M. Romoli, J. Sida, Phys.
Rev. C 74 (2006) 044606.
[45] K.E. Rehm, H. Esbensen, C.L. Jiang, B.B. Back, F. Borasi, B. Harss, R.V.F. Janssens, V. Nanal, J. Nolen, R.C.
Pardo, M. Paul, P. Reiter, R.E. Segel, A. Sonzogni, J. Uusitalo, A.H. Wuosmaa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 3341.
[46] G.V. Martí, P.R.S. Gomes, M.D. Rodriguez, J.O. Fernández Niello, O.A. Capurro, A.J. Pacheco, J.E. Testoni, M.
Ramirez, A. Arazi, I. Padrón, R.M. Anjos, J. Lubian, E. Crema, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 027602.
[47] L.C. Chamon, M. Hussein, L.F. Canto, Braz. J. Phys. 37 (2007) 1177.
[48] H.D. Vries, C.D. Jager, C.D. Vries, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 36 (1987) 495.
[49] G.D. Alkhazov, M.N. Andronenko, A.V. Dobrovolsky, P. Egelhof, G.E. Gavrilov, H. Geissel, H. Irnich, A.V. Khan-
zadeev, G.A. Korolev, A.A. Lobodenko, G. Münzenberg, M. Mutterer, S.R. Neumaier, F. Nickel, W. Schwab, D.M.
Seliverstov, T. Suzuki, J.P. Theobald, N.A. Timofeev, A.A. Vorobyov, V.I. Yatsoura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997)
2313.