4.5 Article

Systematic study of unfavored α-decay half-lives of closed-shell nuclei related to ground and isomeric states

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW C
Volume 96, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.024318

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11205083, 11505100]
  2. Construct Program of the Key Discipline in Hunan Province
  3. Research Foundation of the Education Bureau of Hunan Province, China [15A159]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China [2015JJ3103, 2015JJ2121]
  5. Innovation Group of Nuclear and Particle Physics in USC
  6. Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation, China [ZR2015AQ007]
  7. Hunan Provincial Innovation Foundation for Postgraduate [CX2017B536]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present work, the unfavored alpha-decay half-lives and a preformation probabilities of closed-shell nuclei related to ground and isomeric states around Z = 82, N = 82 and 126 shell closures are investigated by adopting the two-potential approach from the perspective of valence nucleon (hole) and isospin asymmetry of the parent nucleus. The results indicate that alpha preformation probability has linear dependence on NpNn or NpNnI, the same as the case of favored alpha-decay in our previous work [X.-D. Sun et al., Phys. Rev. C 94, 024338 (2016)]. N-p, N-n, and I represent the number of valence protons (holes), the number of valence neutrons (holes), and the isospin of the parent nucleus, respectively. Fitting the a preformation probability data extracted from the differences between experimental data and calculated half-lives without a shell correction, we give two linear formulas of the a preformation probabilities and the values of corresponding parameters. Based on the formulas and corresponding parameters, we calculate the alpha-decay half-lives for those nuclei. The calculated results can well reproduce the experimental data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available