1: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \begin{document}
4: \title[Systematic study of isoscaling behavior in projectile fragmentation]
5: {Systematic study of isoscaling behavior in projectile fragmentation
6: by the statistical abrasion-ablation model}
7:
8: \author{D. Q. Fang\footnote{Corresponding author.
9: {\it Email address: dqfang@sinap.ac.cn}}
10: , Y. G. Ma, C. Zhong, C. W. Ma,
11: X. Z. Cai, J. G. Chen, W. Guo, Q. M. Su, W. D. Tian, K. Wang,
12: T. Z. Yan, W. Q. Shen
13: }
14:
15: \address{Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy
16: of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, People's Republic of China}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: The isospin effect and isoscaling behavior in projectile fragmentation have
20: been systematically investigated by a modified statistical abrasion-ablation
21: (SAA) model. The normalized peak differences and reduced isoscaling parameters
22: are found to decrease with ($Z_{\mbox{proj}}-Z$)/$Z_{\mbox{proj}}$ or the
23: excitation energy per nucleon and have no significant dependence on the size
24: of reaction systems. Assuming a Fermi-gas behavior, the excitation energy
25: dependence of the symmetry energy coefficients are tentatively extracted
26: from $\alpha$ and $\beta$ which looks consistent with the experimental data.
27: It is pointed out that the reduced isoscaling parameters can be used as an
28: observable to study excitation extent of system and asymmetric nuclear
29: equation of state in heavy ion collisions.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: \pacs{25.70.Mn, 24.10.Pa}
33:
34: %\maketitle
35:
36: \section{Introduction}
37:
38: The process of projectile fragmentation has been studied extensively
39: for investigation of reaction mechanisms in heavy ion collisions
40: at intermediate and high energies \cite{BOW,HUF,GOS,MOR,DAY,BON,Brohm1994NPA}.
41: It is also one of the most important methods to produce exotic nuclei.
42: Recent advances in experiments using radioactive ion beams with
43: large neutron or proton excess have lead to the discovery of
44: halo structure \cite{TAN1,TAN2}. Since then interest in the study of
45: very neutron-rich and proton-rich nuclei has grown due to their
46: anomalous structures. In addition, the studies of isospin physics have become
47: a very popular subject. The isospin effects of various
48: physical phenomena, such as multifragmentation, flow, pre-equilibrium
49: nucleon emission, etc., have been extensively reported
50: \cite{MIL,DEM,LIB1,LIB2,PAK,KUM,Muller1995,Ma1999}.
51: The studies have shown that isospin effect exists in nuclear reactions
52: induced by exotic nuclei but it may disappear under certain conditions.
53: Our previous calculations by using the modified statistical abrasion-ablation
54: (SAA) model have demonstrated that the fragment isotopic distribution shifts toward
55: the neutron-rich side for neutron-rich projectile, but the shift decreases
56: with the increase of the parameter (Z$_{\mbox{proj}}$-Z)/Z$_{\mbox{proj}}$
57: or the violence of nuclear reaction. This isospin effect of
58: fragmentation reaction on the fragment isotopic distribution will disappear
59: when (Z$_{\mbox{proj}}$-Z)/Z$_{\mbox{proj}}$ becomes larger than 0.5
60: \cite{Fang2001CPL,Fang2000PRC}.
61:
62: Recently, study of the nuclear symmetry energy has become a very important
63: topic in nuclear physics. It is well known that the nuclear symmetry energy
64: is very significant for investigation of the nuclear equation of state and
65: a variety of astrophysical phenomena.
66: The isoscaling approach for light fragment composition produced in the
67: multifragmentation of very hot source has become an important method
68: in heavy ion collisions since it can isolate the nuclear symmetry energy
69: in the fragment yields \cite{Tsang2001PRL,Tsang2001PRC1,Tsang2001PRC2,Botvina}.
70: The scaling law relates ratios of isotope yields measured in two
71: different nuclear reactions, 1 and 2,
72: $R_{21}(N,Z)=Y_2(N,Z)/Y_1(N,Z)$. In multifragmentation events,
73: such ratios are shown to obey an exponential dependence on the
74: neutron number $N$ or proton number $Z$ of the isotopes or isotones
75: characterized by three parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ and C
76: \cite{Tsang2001PRL}:
77: \begin{equation}
78: R_{21}(N,Z) = \frac{Y_2(N,Z)}{Y_1(N,Z)} = C \exp(\alpha N + \beta
79: Z),
80: \end{equation}
81: here $C$ is an overall normalization constant.
82: In the grand-canonical limit, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ will have the form,
83: \begin{equation}
84: \alpha =
85: \frac{4C_{\mbox{sym}}}{T}[(\frac{Z_1}{A_1})^2-(\frac{Z_2}{A_2})^2]
86: \equiv
87: \frac{4C_{\mbox{sym}}}{T}\Delta[(\frac{Z}{A})^2]
88: \end{equation}
89: and
90: \begin{equation}
91: \beta =
92: \frac{4C_{\mbox{sym}}}{T}[(\frac{N_1}{A_1})^2-(\frac{N_2}{A_2})^2]
93: \equiv
94: \frac{4C_{\mbox{sym}}}{T}\Delta[(\frac{N}{A})^2],
95: \end{equation}
96: where $C_{\mbox{sym}}$ is symmetry energy coefficient (MeV),
97: $(\frac{Z_{\mbox{i}}}{A_{\mbox{i}}})^2$ or
98: $(\frac{N_{\mbox{i}}}{A_{\mbox{i}}})^2$ (i=1,2)
99: means the square of charge or neutron number over mass number for system 1 and 2.
100: $T$ is the temperature of the system in MeV. This behavior is
101: attributed to the difference of isospin asymmetry between two
102: reaction systems in similar nuclear temperature.
103: Since the symmetry energy determines nuclear structure of neutron-rich
104: or neutron-deficient rare isotopes,
105: studies on the isoscaling behavior can be used
106: to probe the isospin dependent nuclear equation of
107: state \cite{Tsang2001PRL,Tsang2001PRC1,Tsang2001PRC2,Botvina,DiToro,
108: Ma_review,Ma2004PRC,Tian,FevrePRL,Souliotis05}.
109:
110: So far, the isoscaling behavior has been studied experimentally
111: and theoretically for different reaction mechanisms. However, most
112: studies focus on the isoscaling behaviors for light particles with
113: $Z$=2$-$8. A few studies on the heavy projectile-like residues
114: in deep elastic collisions and fission fragments have been reported
115: \cite{Souliotis05,Souliotis2003PRC,Friedman,Veselsky2,Wang,Ma_fis}.
116:
117: In this paper, we will present our studies on systematic
118: behaviors of the isospin effect as well as isoscaling features for
119: projectile-like fragments in the framework of statistical
120: abrasion-ablation model. Extraction of the symmetry energy
121: coefficient from the isoscaling parameters will also be investigated.
122:
123: \section{Model description}
124:
125: The statistical abrasion-ablation model can describe the
126: isotopic distribution well \cite{Brohm1994NPA}. In the SAA model ,
127: the nuclear reaction is described as two stages which occur in two
128: distinctly different time scales. The first abrasion stage is
129: fragmentation reaction which describes the production of the
130: pre-fragment with certain amount excitation energy through the
131: independent nucleon-nucleon collisions in the overlap zone of the
132: colliding nuclei. The collisions are described by a picture of
133: interacting tubes. Assuming a binomial distribution for the
134: absorbed projectile neutrons and protons in the interaction of a
135: specific pair of tubes, the distributions of the total abraded
136: neutrons and protons are determined. For an infinitesimal tube in
137: the projectile, the transmission probabilities for neutrons
138: (protons) at a given impact parameter $b$ are calculated by
139: \cite{Brohm1994NPA}
140: \begin{equation}
141: t_{\mbox{k}}(\vec{r}-\vec{b})=\exp\{-[D_{\mbox{n}}^{\mbox{T}}
142: (\vec{r}-\vec{b})\sigma_{\mbox{nk}}+%
143: D_{\mbox{p}}^{\mbox{T}}(\vec{r}-\vec{b})\sigma_{\mbox{pk}}]\},
144: \end{equation}
145: where $D^{\mbox{T}}$ is thickness function of
146: the target, which is normalized by
147: $\int d^2rD^{\mbox{T}}_{\mbox{n}}=N^{\mbox{T}}$ and
148: $\int d^2rD^{\mbox{T}}_{\mbox{p}}=Z^{\mbox{T}}$ with
149: $N^{\mbox{T}}$ and $Z^{\mbox{T}}$ referring to the neutron and
150: proton number in the target respectively, the vectors $\vec{r}$ and $\vec{b}$
151: are defined in the plane perpendicular to beam, and
152: $\sigma_{\mbox{k}'\mbox{k}}$ is the free nucleon-nucleon cross
153: sections (k$'$, k$=$n for neutron and k$'$, k$=$p for proton). The
154: thickness function of the target is given by
155: \begin{equation}
156: D^{\mbox{T}}_{\mbox{k}}(r)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dz\rho_{\mbox{k}}
157: ((r^2+z^2)^{1/2}),
158: \end{equation}
159: with $\rho_{\mbox{k}}$ being the neutron (proton) density
160: distribution of the target. So the average abraded mass at a given
161: impact parameter $b$ is calculated by the expression
162: \begin{equation}
163: \begin{array}{ll}
164: \langle \Delta A(b) \rangle= & \int d^2rD_{\mbox{n}}^{\mbox{P}}(r)
165: [1-t_{\mbox{n}}(\vec{r}-\vec{b})] \\
166: &+\int d^2rD_{\mbox{p}}^{\mbox{P}}(r)[1-t_{\mbox{p}}(\vec{r}-\vec{b})].
167: \end{array}
168: \end{equation}
169:
170: \begin{figure}[t]
171: \begin{center}
172: \includegraphics[width=6.2cm,angle=-90]{exp}
173: \caption{Comparison of isotopic distributions between the SAA model and the data.
174: The isotopic distributions for selected charge numbers from
175: 44 $A$MeV $^{86}$Kr+$^{27}$Al (upper panel) and
176: 790 $A$MeV $^{129}$Xe+$^{27}$Al (lower panel). The dots are the experimental data
177: taken from Ref.\cite{BAZ} for 44 $A$MeV $^{86}$Kr+$^{27}$Al
178: and Ref.\cite{REI} for 790 $A$MeV $^{129}$Xe+$^{27}$Al,
179: the lines are the results calculated by the SAA model.}
180: \label{exp}
181: \end{center}
182: \end{figure}
183:
184: \begin{figure}[t]
185: \begin{center}
186: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig05}
187: \caption{The normalized peak difference
188: $\Delta$A$_{\mbox{peak}}$/$\Delta$A$_{\mbox{proj}}$
189: of the fragment isotopic distribution as a function of
190: ($Z_{\mbox{proj}}-Z$)/$Z_{\mbox{proj}}$. Different
191: symbols are used for projectiles with different charge number
192: as shown in the legend.}
193: \label{iso}
194: \end{center}
195: \end{figure}
196:
197: \begin{figure}[t]
198: \vspace{0.2cm}
199: \begin{center}
200: \includegraphics[width=15.5cm]{scalingnz}
201: \caption{Yield ratios $R_{21}(N,Z)$ of fragments from
202: the reactions of $^{124/112}$Sn+$^{112}$Sn at 60$A$ MeV versus $N$ for
203: the selected isotopes (left panel) and $Z$ for the selected isotones
204: (right panel). Different symbols are used for different isotopes and
205: isotones as shown in the legend. The lines represent the exponential fits.
206: For details see text.}
207: \label{R21_Proton_Neutron}
208: \end{center}
209: \end{figure}
210:
211: The second stage is the evaporation process in which the system
212: reorganizes due to excitation. It deexcites and
213: thermalizes by the cascade evaporation of light particles using
214: the conventional statistical model~\cite{Gimmard}.
215: The excitation energy for projectile spectator is estimated by a
216: simple relation of $E^* = 13.3 \langle \Delta A(b) \rangle$ MeV
217: where 13.3 is a mean excitation energy for an abraded nucleon
218: from the initial projectile. This excitation energy was given
219: by the statistical hole-energy model as described in Ref.~\cite{Gimmard}.
220: After the evaporation stage, we can obtain the final fragments
221: which are comparable to the experimental data.
222: By introducing in-medium nucleon-nucleon cross section and optimizing
223: computational method given in
224: Ref. \cite{Cai2002PRC,Fang2001CPL,Fang2000PRC,Zhong2003HEP},
225: it can give a good agreement with the experimental isotopic distributions
226: \cite{Fang2001CPL,Fang2000PRC,Zhong2003HEP}. Comparison of the SAA model
227: calculations with the experimental isotopic distributions for
228: $Z=30-32$ from 44 $A$MeV $^{86}$Kr+$^{27}$Al \cite{BAZ} and
229: $Z=43-45$ from 790 $A$MeV $^{129}$Xe+$^{27}$Al \cite{REI} is shown
230: in Fig.~\ref{exp}.
231: The results shown in this figure and all the following figures are
232: referring the final fragments after the evaporation stage.
233: For $^{86}$Kr, all isotopic distributions are normalized
234: by the same factor in order to compare with the experimental yields.
235: For $^{129}$Xe, the calculated production cross sections
236: are compared with the data directly. From this figure, we can see that
237: the SAA model can reproduce the experimental data both at intermediate
238: and high energies quite well.
239: The isospin effect and its disappearance in projectile fragmentation
240: for $^{36,40}Ar$ at intermediate energies have been predicted by
241: this model and confirmed by the experimental data \cite{Fang2000PRC}.
242:
243:
244: \section{Calculations and discussion}
245:
246: The model predicts that strong isospin effect exists in the isotopic
247: distributions produced by projectiles with same charge number but different
248: mass number \cite{Fang2001CPL,Fang2000PRC}.
249: In order to do a systematic study of the isospin effect
250: in projectile fragmentation, reactions of $^{40/36}$Ar, $^{48/40}$Ca,
251: $^{64/58}$Ni, $^{86/78}$Kr, $^{124/112}$Sn and $^{129/136}$Xe on $^{112}$Sn
252: at 60$A$ MeV are simulated by the SAA model.
253: Since the isotopic distributions from two projectiles have similar shape but a shift
254: in mass, their peak positions will be one of the most sensitive quantities for
255: the isospin effect. Thus we extract the peak position by
256: Gaussian fit to the fragment isotopic distribution for each charge number Z
257: as in Ref.\cite{Fang2001CPL,Fang2000PRC}.
258: The normalized differences of the peak position from two projectiles
259: $\Delta$A$_{\mbox{peak}}$/$\Delta$A$_{\mbox{proj}}$
260: as a function of %the excitation energy per nucleon ($E^*$/$A$)
261: ($Z_{\mbox{proj}}-Z$)/$Z_{\mbox{proj}}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{iso}.
262: Here $\Delta$A$_{\mbox{proj}}$ is the mass number difference between
263: the two projectiles with same charge number and $\Delta$A$_{\mbox{peak}}$ is the peak
264: position difference of the fragment isotopic distribution produced by
265: these two projectiles.
266: $Z_{\mbox{proj}}$ and $Z$ are the charge number of the projectile and the
267: produced isotopes.
268: $\Delta$A$_{\mbox{peak}}$/$\Delta$A$_{\mbox{proj}}$
269: exponentially decreases as the increase of ($Z_{\mbox{proj}}-Z$)/$Z_{\mbox{proj}}$
270: which is same as our previous conclusions \cite{Fang2000PRC}. The dependence of
271: $\Delta$A$_{\mbox{peak}}$/$\Delta$A$_{\mbox{proj}}$ on
272: ($Z_{\mbox{proj}}-Z$)/$Z_{\mbox{proj}}$
273: shows a very slight difference among different size projectiles.
274:
275: To study systematic behaviors of the isoscaling phenomena, the yield
276: ratios $R_{21}(N,Z)$ are made using the convention that index 2 refers to
277: the more neutron-rich system and index 1 to the less neutron-rich one.
278: As an example, Fig.~\ref{R21_Proton_Neutron} shows
279: the yield ratios $R_{21}(N,Z)$
280: as a function of neutron number $N$ for selected isotopes and $Z$ for
281: selected isotones from $^{124/112}$Sn + $^{112}$Sn reactions in log-scale.
282: From this figure, we observe that the ratio for
283: each isotope $Z$ exhibits a remarkable exponential behavior.
284: For each isotope ($Z$), an exponential function form $C \exp(\alpha N)$ is
285: used to fit the calculated points and the parameters $\alpha$ are obtained
286: for all isotopes. Analogous behavior is observed for each isotone ($N$),
287: an exponential function form $C' \exp(\beta Z)$ is used to fit the
288: calculated points and the parameters $\beta$ are obtained for all isotones.
289:
290: \begin{figure}[h]
291: \begin{center}
292: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig30}
293: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{iso} but for the isoscaling
294: parameters $\alpha$ (upper panel) and $|\beta|$ (lower panel) as a
295: function of the excitation energy per nucleon.}
296: \label{alpha_beta}
297: \end{center}
298: \end{figure}
299:
300: \begin{figure}[t]
301: \begin{center}
302: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig31}
303: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{iso} but for the reduced isoscaling
304: parameters $\alpha$/$\Delta[(\frac{Z}{A})^2]$ (upper panel) and
305: $\beta$/$\Delta[(\frac{N}{A})^2]$ (lower panel) as a
306: function of the excitation energy per nucleon.}
307: \label{sub}
308: \end{center}
309: \end{figure}
310:
311: In Fig.~\ref{alpha_beta}, we present the extracted slope parameters
312: $\alpha$ (upper panel) and $|\beta|$ (lower panel) of the exponential
313: fits as a function of the excitation energy per nucleon ($E^*/A$).
314: Since the excitation energy changes as a function of time in the
315: process of evaporation, the values of $E^*/A$ shown here are
316: taken at the beginning of the evaporation stage and
317: the mass of the prefragment is used to calculated $E^*/A$.
318: In the model the excitation energy is proportional
319: to the abraded nucleons and can reflect the violence of the collision as
320: the parameter ($Z_{\mbox{proj}}-Z$)/$Z_{\mbox{proj}}$ shows \cite{Fang2000PRC}.
321: In this figure, $\alpha$ and $|\beta|$ show a decreasing trend with the
322: increasing of $E^*$/$A$.
323: This behavior for projectile-like fragments is different with light particles.
324: The isoscaling parameters of light fragments from multifragmentation is almost
325: constant for different isotopes because the excitation energy or temperature
326: is almost same for all light fragments in the process of multifragmentation.
327: The decrease of the isoscaling parameters in our calculations
328: may mainly be attributed to the evaporation effect of the prefragment
329: with different excitation energy as in the disappearance
330: of the isospin effect \cite{Fang2001CPL,Fang2000PRC}.
331: The values of $\alpha$ and $|\beta|$ are quite different from
332: different reaction systems due to the different size and isospin of
333: the projectiles.
334:
335: According to Eq.~(2) and (3), $\alpha$ and $\beta$ have a linear dependence on
336: $\Delta[(\frac{Z}{A})^2]$ or $\Delta[(\frac{N}{A})^2]$.
337: Since this parameter is dependent on the reaction system,
338: we divide $\alpha$ ($\beta$) by $\Delta[(\frac{Z}{A})^2]$
339: ($\Delta[(\frac{N}{A})^2]$) to remove the system isospin and size
340: dependence and call them reduced isoscaling parameters.
341: The results are given in Fig.~\ref{sub}. After the reduction,
342: $\alpha$/$\Delta[(\frac{Z}{A})^2]$ ($\beta$/$\Delta[(\frac{N}{A})^2]$)
343: of different reaction systems demonstrate almost same dependence with $E^*$/$A$.
344: Eq.~(2) and (3) are deduced from the grand-canonical limit for
345: multifragmentation of hot source. For projectile-like fragments,
346: the same behavior is observed in the SAA model. In this sense,
347: the reduced isoscaling parameters
348: $\alpha$/$\Delta[(\frac{Z}{A})^2]$ ($\beta$/$\Delta[(\frac{N}{A})^2]$)
349: may be used as a sensitive observable for measuring the excitation extent of
350: projectile-like fragments during the collisions without system size dependence.
351:
352: \begin{figure}[t]
353: \begin{center}
354: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig32}
355: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{iso} but for the extracted symmetry
356: energy coefficient from $\alpha$ ($C^{\alpha}_{\mbox{sym}}$, upper panel) and
357: $\beta$ ($C^{\beta}_{\mbox{sym}}$, lower panel) as a function of the
358: excitation energy per nucleon.}
359: \label{Csym}
360: \end{center}
361: \end{figure}
362:
363: From above discussions, we found that
364: $\Delta$A$_{\mbox{peak}}$/$\Delta$A$_{\mbox{proj}}$ and
365: $\alpha$/$\Delta[(\frac{Z}{A})^2]$ ($\beta$/$\Delta[(\frac{N}{A})^2]$)
366: decrease with ($Z_{\mbox{proj}}-Z$)/$Z_{\mbox{proj}}$ or
367: the excitation energy per nucleon.
368: But the later one decreases slower than the first one. It means
369: that $\alpha$/$\Delta[(\frac{Z}{A})^2]$ ($\beta$/$\Delta[(\frac{N}{A})^2]$)
370: is more sensitive to the isospin effect of the projectiles.
371: Since $\alpha$/$\Delta[(\frac{Z}{A})^2]$ ($\beta$/$\Delta[(\frac{N}{A})^2]$)
372: is related to $\frac{C_{\mbox{sym}}}{T}$ as in Eq.~(2) and (3),
373: it can be used as an observable to study the excitation and asymmetric
374: nuclear equation of state in heavy ion collisions.
375:
376: If we use the Fermi-gas relationship between excitation
377: energy per nucleon and temperature $E^*/A=\frac{1}{a}T^2$
378: to calculate $T$ tentatively, with the inverse level density parameter
379: $a$=8$-$13 (in our calculation $a$=10 is used),
380: the symmetry energy coefficient ($C_{\mbox{sym}}$) could be extracted.
381: Results extracted from
382: $\alpha$/$\Delta[(\frac{Z}{A})^2]$ and $\beta$/$\Delta[(\frac{N}{A})^2]$
383: are shown in Fig.~\ref{Csym}. For $E^*/A$ around
384: 1 MeV, the symmetry energy coefficients from $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are around 15 MeV.
385: These values are a little lower than the standard value
386: $C_{\mbox{sym}}$=25 MeV in liquid drop model \cite{Botvina},
387: but it seems consistent with the extracted results from the experimental
388: data by A. Le F\'{e}vre {\it et al.} \cite{FevrePRL}.
389: The obtained $C_{\mbox{sym}}$ is not a constant and decreases with the
390: increase of $E^*/A$. Similar dependence was also observed in the experimental
391: studies but their $C_{\mbox{sym}}$ values is a little bit larger than
392: ours \cite{FevrePRL,Souliotis05}.
393: It should be pointed out that the experimental data are taken at different
394: incident energies (300 $A$ MeV and 600 $A$ MeV in Ref. \cite{FevrePRL}, around 25 $A$ MeV in
395: Ref. \cite{Souliotis05}). Our calculations are performed at 60 $A$ MeV, but we have
396: found that there is almost no incident energy dependence for the isoscaling parameters
397: in our model.
398: In our results, the symmetry energy coefficient decreases quickly
399: when $E^*/A$ is less than 1 MeV. This may stem from the increase of the
400: inverse level density parameter at low excitation energy \cite{NATOWIZPRC02}.
401: Of course, in this low $E^*/A$ range there is very few theoretical and
402: experimental data up to now and more researches are necessary.
403: Experimentally it may be difficult to extract $E^*/A$. As we have mentioned
404: previously that the parameter ($Z_{\mbox{proj}}-Z$)/$Z_{\mbox{proj}}$
405: can reflect the violence of nuclear collision and is approximately
406: proportional to $E^*/A$ in not very central collisions.
407: Actually quite similar dependence as in
408: Fig.~\ref{alpha_beta}-\ref{Csym} is seem if
409: ($Z_{\mbox{proj}}-Z$)/$Z_{\mbox{proj}}$ is used instead of $E^*/A$.
410: Thus we can also study the dependence of the isoscaling parameter
411: and symmetry energy coefficient with ($Z_{\mbox{proj}}-Z$)/$Z_{\mbox{proj}}$
412: experimentally when there is no $E^*/A$ data.
413:
414: However, some cautions should be reminded.
415: In the SAA model, the symmetry energy term is not taken into account explicitly.
416: But a similar analysis of isoscaling as in the
417: statistical multifragmentation model could be done since
418: there exists different isotopic and isotonic distributions
419: between two systems.
420: Of course, the effect of symmetry energy term should have been
421: reflected implicitly in the assumption of the abrasion and also
422: evaporation stages in the SAA model. Thus a clear isoscaling
423: behavior is observed for projectile-like fragments in the
424: this work and the symmetry energy coefficient extracted
425: based on Eq. (2) and (3) is consistent with the experimental
426: data~\cite{FevrePRL,Souliotis05}.
427: The present calculation could provide some useful information for
428: further experimental and theoretical investigations on the isoscaling
429: of projectile-like fragments.
430:
431:
432: \section{Summary}
433: In summary, systematic behaviors of the isospin effect and isoscaling
434: of projectile-like fragments from $^{40/36}$Ar, $^{48/40}$Ca,
435: $^{64/58}$Ni, $^{86/78}$Kr, $^{124/112}$Sn and $^{129/136}$Xe on $^{112}$Sn
436: at 60$A$ MeV have been studied by a modified statistical abrasion-ablation
437: model. The normalized peak differences
438: $\Delta$A$_{\mbox{peak}}$/$\Delta$A$_{\mbox{proj}}$
439: for different reaction systems show similar dependence with the parameter
440: ($Z_{\mbox{proj}}-Z$)/$Z_{\mbox{proj}}$.
441: The isoscaling parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are extracted for
442: the produced isotopes and isotones, and they show different values for
443: different systems. However, the reduced isoscaling parameters
444: $\alpha$/$\Delta[(\frac{Z}{A})^2]$ and $\beta$/$\Delta[(\frac{N}{A})^2]$
445: show almost same dependence with $E^*/A$ for different systems.
446: Assuming a Fermi-gas behavior, the symmetry energy coefficients are tentatively
447: extracted from $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and it seems that the results are consistent
448: with the experimental data.
449:
450: \ack
451: This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science
452: Foundation of China (NNSFC) under Grant No. 10405032, 10535010,
453: 10405033 and 10475108, Shanghai Development
454: Foundation for Science and Technology under contract No. 06QA14062,
455: 06JC14082 and 05XD14021, the Major State Basic
456: Research Development Program in China under Contract No. 2007CB815004
457: and the Knowledge Innovation Project of Chinese Academy of Sciences
458: under Grant No. KJCX3.SYW.N2.
459:
460: %\footnotesize
461: \section*{References}
462: \begin{thebibliography}{28}
463: \bibitem{BOW}J. D. Bowman, W. J. Swiatecki, C. F. Tang,
464: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report No. LBL-{\bf 2908} (1973).
465:
466: \bibitem{HUF}J. H\"{u}fner, K. Sh\"{a}fer, B. Sch\"{u}rmann, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 12}, 1888 (1975).
467:
468: \bibitem{GOS}J. Gosset {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 16}, 629 (1977).
469:
470: \bibitem{MOR}M. J. Morrissey {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 18}, 1267 (1978).
471:
472: \bibitem{DAY}R. Dayras {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 460}, 299 (1986).
473:
474: \bibitem{BON}A. Bonasera, M. di Toro, C. Gr\'{e}goire, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 463}, 653 (1987).
475:
476: \bibitem{Brohm1994NPA}T. Brohm, K.-H. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 569}, 821 (1994).
477:
478: \bibitem{TAN1}I. Tanihata {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55}, 2676 (1985);
479: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 160}, 380 (1985).
480:
481: \bibitem{TAN2}I. Tanihata {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 206}, 592 (1988).
482:
483: \bibitem{MIL}M. L. Miller {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 1399 (1999).
484:
485: \bibitem{DEM}J. F. Dempsey {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 54}, 1710 (1996).
486:
487: \bibitem{LIB1}B. A. Li {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 4492 (1996).
488:
489: \bibitem{LIB2}B. A. Li, C. M. Ko, W. Bauer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E {\bf 7}, 147 (1998).
490:
491: \bibitem{PAK}R. Pak {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 1022 (1997); 1026 (1997).
492:
493: \bibitem{KUM}S. Kumar {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58}, 3494 (1998).
494:
495: \bibitem{Muller1995}H. M\"uller, B. D. Serot, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 52}, 2072 (1995).
496:
497: \bibitem{Ma1999}Y. G. Ma {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 60}, 024607 (1999).
498:
499: \bibitem{Fang2001CPL}D. Q. Fang {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61}, 044610 (2000);
500: High Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 24}, 69 (2000) (in Chinese).
501:
502: \bibitem{Fang2000PRC}D. Q. Fang {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 10}, 0381 (2001).
503:
504: \bibitem{Tsang2001PRL}M. B. Tsang {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5023 (2001).
505:
506: \bibitem{Tsang2001PRC1}M. B. Tsang {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 64}, 041603 (2001).
507:
508: \bibitem{Tsang2001PRC2}M. B. Tsang {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 64}, 054615 (2001).
509:
510: \bibitem{Botvina}A. S. Botvina, O. V. Lozhkin, W. Trautmann, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65}, 044610 (2002).
511:
512: \bibitem{DiToro}V. Baran {\it et al.}, Phys. Rep. {\bf 410}, 335 (2005).
513:
514: \bibitem{Ma_review}Y. G. Ma, W. Q. Shen, Nucl. Sci. Tech. {\bf 15}, 4 (2004).
515:
516: \bibitem{Ma2004PRC}Y. G. Ma {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 69}, 064610 (2004).
517:
518: \bibitem{Tian}W. D. Tian {\it et al.}, Chin. Phys. Lett. {\bf 22}, 306 (2005).
519:
520: \bibitem{FevrePRL}A. Le F\`{e}vre {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 162701 (2005).
521:
522: \bibitem{Souliotis05}G. A. Souliotis {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 73}, 024606 (2006).
523:
524: \bibitem{Souliotis2003PRC}G. A. Souliotis {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 68}, 024605 (2003).
525:
526: \bibitem{Friedman}W. A. Friedman, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 69}, 031601(R) (2004).
527:
528: \bibitem{Veselsky2}M. Veselsky, G. A. Souliotis, M. Jandel, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 69}, 044607 (2004).
529:
530: \bibitem{Wang}K. Wang {\it et al.}, Chin. Phys. Lett. {\bf 22}, 53 (2005).
531:
532: \bibitem{Ma_fis}Y. G. Ma {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 72}, 064603 (2005).
533:
534: \bibitem{Gimmard}J.-J. Gaimard, K.-H. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 531}, 709 (1991).
535:
536: \bibitem{Cai2002PRC}X. Z. Cai {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58}, 572 (1998).
537:
538: \bibitem{Zhong2003HEP}C. Zhong {\it et al.}, High Energ. Phys. Nucl. {\bf 27}, 39 (2003) (in Chinese).
539:
540: \bibitem{BAZ}D. Bazin {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 515}, 349 (1990).
541:
542: \bibitem{REI}J. Reinhold {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58}, 247 (1998).
543:
544: \bibitem{NATOWIZPRC02}J. B. Natowitz {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65}, 034618 (2002).
545:
546: \end{thebibliography}
547: \end{document}
548: