text:
# Temporal Structures in Shell Models.

## 1 Introduction

One of the main goals in current turbulence research is to understand the effect of intermittency in turbulence. It has long been known that intermittency produces corrections to the classical Kolmogorov $`5/3`$ scaling law and to other moments of the energy spectrum in the inertial range . Still very little is known about the intense intermittent structures found in turbulent flows .
Over the last decade turbulent shell-models have been studied intensively because of their simplicity and excellent agreement of their statistics in comparison with that of experimentally measured turbulence . In a way these models reproduce the statistics far better than expected from their simplicity, so the general idea has been to reveal the nature of the dynamics of these models and then afterwards relate this experiences to the full problem of turbulence.
While the main approach to shell models has been statistical, much can be learned from the study of the temporal structures naturally arising in the model. Because of the intense dynamics during these temporal events they are called bursts. Only recently have these temporal structures been thoroughly studied together with the nature of their creation . Among the large numbers and types of different shell-models the present work is based on the successful GOY shell-model .
The paper is organised as follows: The first part gives a detailed description of the bursts of the standard GOY-model. The second part shows that an approximative chaotic attractor of the model exists expressed by the collective dynamics of the neighbouring shells.

## 2 The GOY-model

All shell-models simulate the flow of energy through wavenumber space in fully developed turbulence. The models consist of a system of coupled ordinary differential equations where the energy is injected into the low wave-numbers by a constant forcing term. The energy then cascades up to the high wave-numbers by means of a coupling term where it is dissipated away by a viscosity term.

### 2.1 Construction

In the GOY model wave-number space is divided into $`N`$ separate shells with characteristic wavenumbers $`k_n=k_0\lambda ^n(\lambda =2)`$ where $`n=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and $`k_0`$ is a constant determining the smallest wavenumber in the model. Each shell is assigned a complex amplitude $`u_n`$ which can be imagined as the velocity difference on a scale $`\mathrm{}_n=1/k_n`$. By assuming conservation of phase space, energy and helicity and interactions among the nearest and next nearest neighbour shells, one can arrive at the following set of evolution equations

$$\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\nu k_n^2\right)u_n=ik_n(u_{n+1}^{}u_{n+2}^{}\frac{\delta }{2}u_{n1}^{}u_{n+1}^{}\frac{1\delta }{4}u_{n2}^{}u_{n1}^{})+f\delta _{n,4}$$
(1)
with boundary conditions $`u_1=u_0=u_{N+1}=u_{N+2}=0`$, and constant forcing $`f`$ on the fourth shell.
The set (1) of $`N`$ coupled ordinary differential equations is numerically integrated by standard techniques . In the simulations, we use the following standard values: $`\delta =1/2,N=19,\nu =10^6,k_0=2^4,f=(1+i)0.005`$ as found in earlier work .

### 2.2 Conservation laws, fixed-points and invariance

The strength of the shell-models relates to their simplicity in construction, which can be justified by imposing the same conservation-laws and invariants as the Naiver-Stokes Eq. i.e. the basic equations governing fluid dynamics. As for other shell-models the GOY-model exhibits these conservation laws in the absence of forcing and viscosity $`(f=\nu =0)`$ reducing the right side of Eq.1 to the coupling-term.
The conservation of phase-space is enforced as the coupling term does not contain $`u_n`$. The remaining conserved quantities are quadratic i.e. they can be written in the form: $`Q_\alpha =k_n^\alpha |u_n|^2`$. Using the relation $`\frac{1}{2}\dot{(u_n^2)}=u_n\dot{u}_n`$ and inserting $`Q_\alpha `$ in the model, the coupling term becomes three terms of three successive amplitudes multiplied together. Comparing these three terms gives the following relation on $`\alpha `$: $`1\delta 2^\alpha (1\delta )2^{2\alpha }=0`$ with two solutions: $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\alpha =\mathrm{ln}_\lambda (\delta 1)`$. The first ($`\alpha =0`$) corresponds to the conservation of energy while the other solution corresponds to helicity conservation in the case of three dimensional turbulence $`(\delta <1)`$ and to enstrophy conservation in the case of two dimensional turbulence $`(\delta >1)`$ .
The fact that the coupling term multiplied by $`u_n`$ gives three terms all similar within pre-factors and a displacement in indices makes the dynamics of the model invariant to the following changes in the complex phase:

$`u_n`$ $``$ $`e^{i\alpha }u_n,`$
$`u_{n+1}`$ $``$ $`e^{i\beta \alpha }u_{n+1},\text{where }n\text{ modulus }3=1`$ (2)
$`u_{n+2}`$ $``$ $`e^{i\beta }u_{n+2},`$
and $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are free parameters. This invariance affects not only the phases but also the dynamics of the model since every third shell tend to follow the same behaviour.
Thinking of the GOY-model as a dynamical system a basic thing to study is the fixed-points of the model: $`\dot{u}_n=0,n=1\mathrm{}N`$. Requiring again an inviscid and unforced model $`(f=\nu =0)`$ gives two non-trivial scaling fixed-points: $`u_n=k_n^zg(n)`$ with $`z=\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`z=\frac{1}{3}(1\mathrm{ln}_\lambda (\delta 1))`$ where $`g(n)`$ is an arbitrary function of period three in $`n`$ coming from the invariance of the model. The first fixed-point: $`u_nk_n^{1/3}g(n)`$ corresponds to the Kolmogorov $`\frac{5}{3}`$ scaling-law and will be called the Kolmogorov fixed-point while the other solution result in an alternation of the amplitudes . In spite the simplicity of the these fixed-points they play a crucial role in the later analysis of the model.

## 3 Dynamics of the model

At large time-scales the dynamics of the model may seem stochastic but as the time-span refines distinct spikes emerge and in the end the dynamics is noiseless and fully resolved even during the most dramatic changes. To observe the general behaviour we monitor $`|u_n(t)|`$ as a function of time and because of large variations in magnitude it is shown in a semi-logarithmic plot in Fig.1. The higher shells has the lowest absolute value and fastest variations while the lower shells vary over a longer time-span.

Two main features strike from Fig.1: All the higher shells evolve in a synchronised manner and the evolution follows a general pattern of strong bursts interchanged by oscillatory relaxation. Bursts occur randomly in time with great variations in their strength.

### 3.1 Organisation of shell-dynamics

The synchronisation of the different shells is a result of the coupling between the shells making the model self-organise into the types of behaviour seen in Fig.1. The organisation in the model is showed most clearly by the local two-point correlation function measuring how the dynamics of a given shell is correlated to its neighbourhood of both shells and in time. It is defined using the following two shortcuts

$$U_0=U_{n_0}(t),U_\mathrm{\Delta }=U_{n_0+\mathrm{\Delta }n}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)$$

by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }n)=C(U_0,U_\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{\overline{U_0^{}U_\mathrm{\Delta }}\overline{U_0^{}}\overline{U_\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\sqrt{\left(\overline{|U_0^2|}\overline{|U_0|}^2\right)\left(\overline{|U_\mathrm{\Delta }^2|}\overline{|U_\mathrm{\Delta }|}^2\right)}}$$
(3)
and where the averages are taken over time.
The information gained from the $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }n)|`$ is divided into two parts: First only the norm of the complex amplitudes is correlated replacing $`U_0`$ and $`U_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by their norms. This is shown in the left part of Fig.2 as a contour-plot with dark as the strongest normalised correlation. Second the full complex amplitudes are correlated and showed in the same manner in the right part of Fig.2. Both correlations have $`n_0=15`$ and averaged over $`40.000n.u.`$ which correspond roughly to a time-span of approximately $`4000`$ successive bursts.

The left plot show that all the amplitudes in the model is strongly correlated from the forcing at the $`4^{\text{th}}`$ shell up to the highest shells. This strong correlation is due to the organisation of the amplitude dynamics during both bursts and the succeeding strong oscillations. The same plot also shows the motion of the burst through the shells by the time-shift of the correlation-peeks for increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$. When taking the amplitude phases into account the correlation function changes radically as seen in the right plot. Now only every third amplitude are correlated and this comes as a result of the period three invariance of the model. This plot shows also how the characteristic time-scale changes among the different shells. It is seen by the extent of the correlation-peeks in time which decreases with shell-number. When relating the characteristic time-scale to the turnover-time ($`\tau _n`$) this dependence comes direct from dimension analysis .

### 3.2 Front motion during burst

The motion of the bursts is a part of a more general motion of different organisations of the amplitudes travelling with exponential increasing speed from the lower towards the higher shells where they vanish because of viscosity . A way to see this is to look at the changes in the instantaneous amplitude spectre during the motion of a burst. This is shown in Fig.3 by snapshots of $`\mathrm{ln}|u_n(t)|`$ vs. $`n`$ where the time between snapshots decrease by a factor of $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ giving roughly an equidistant motion of the burst. As for all other bursts Fig.3 reveals that the burst travels through the shells as a front keeping the same overall shape. Just at the maximum rise of the amplitudes the overall scaling exponent of the inertial range is a bit lower than the Kolmogorov scaling-law shown by the dashed line in Fig.3. Immediately after the last snapshot all the shells enters the oscillatory state.

### 3.3 Real-valued model

Due to the invariance in the model the creation and behaviour of the bursts are unaffected by the complex phase of the amplitudes. A model in terms of real values will therefore be used in the following analysis:

$$\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\nu k_n^2\right)r_n=k_n(r_{n+1}r_{n+2}\frac{1}{4}r_{n1}r_{n+1}\frac{1}{8}r_{n2}r_{n1})+f\delta _{n,4}$$
(4)
having $`r_n=|u_n|`$, no conjugations and “$`1`$” instead of “$`i`$” in front of the coupling-term .

## 4 Local variables

From the construction of the model the dynamics of a given shell depends only on the instantaneous configuration of the neighbouring shells and it has no explicit dependence on the present or past states. If we at first restrict ourself to the inertial range neglecting forcing and viscosity the neighbouring shells may be seen as a local phase-space of a shell since their configuration through the coupling-term exactly determines the instantaneous dynamics $`(\dot{r}_n)`$ of the amplitude $`r_n`$. To characterise this local phase-space each set of neighbouring shells will be called the local shells: $`\stackrel{}{L}_n=(r_{n2},r_{n1},r_{n+1},r_{n+2})`$ of the n$`^{\text{th}}`$ shell, and they should not be seen as part of the other amplitudes but rather as an isolated set of variables determining $`\dot{r}_n`$.
The configuration of $`\stackrel{}{L}_n`$ will be described by first choosing the slope of $`\mathrm{ln}_\lambda (\stackrel{}{L}_n)`$ which is nothing but the local scaling exponent at the n$`^{\text{th}}`$ shell. To continue we define

$$\stackrel{}{\eta }_n\mathrm{ln}_\lambda (\stackrel{}{L}_n)$$
(5)
and choose the mean, curvature and third order component of $`\stackrel{}{\eta }_n`$. This gives the local variables: $`\stackrel{}{P}_n=(A_n,B_n,C_n,D_n)`$ of $`r_n`$ defined as the coefficients of the projection of $`\stackrel{}{\eta }_n`$ on the orthogonal basis given by the matrix $`𝐓`$ :

$$\stackrel{}{\eta }_n=𝐓\stackrel{}{P}_n,\stackrel{}{L}_n=2^{\stackrel{}{\eta }_n}$$
(6)
where

$$𝐓=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha & 2\beta & \alpha & \beta \\ \alpha & \beta & \alpha & 2\beta \\ \alpha & \beta & \alpha & 2\beta \\ \alpha & 2\beta & \alpha & \beta \end{array}\right)$$
(7)
and $`\alpha =1/4`$ and $`\beta =1/10`$.
The basis of the local variables is plotted in Fig.4 showing how it can be characterised as a simple “Taylor-series” expansion of $`\stackrel{}{\eta }_n`$. These variables are believed to be the right variables to monitor the dynamics of the model since they describe globally the configuration of the local shells instead of focusing on the individual neighbouring shells. The local scaling of shell-models has been studied earlier , but this was the instantaneous local scaling averaged over all shells and using a coarse-grained time resolution.

### 4.1 Application to the model

To implement Eq.6,7 into the model we assume the components of $`\stackrel{}{\eta }_n`$ to behave smoothly in $`n`$ such that $`r_n2^{A_n}`$, giving:

$$\dot{r}_n=k_n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{2A_n}\left(2^{3B_nD_n}\frac{\delta }{2}2^{2C_n}\frac{1\delta }{4}2^{3B_n+D_n}\right)\nu k_n^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{A_n}.$$
(8)
Eq.8 gives direct evidence of the period three invariance of the model: Since the dynamics only depends on the combinations ($`3B_nD_n,C_n,A_n`$), we define $`E_n3B_nD_n`$. The model is then invariant to the orthogonal component of $`E_n`$: $`E_n=3D_n+B_n`$ which is nothing but the period three invariance as seen in in Fig.5.

From the construction of Eq.8 is should be noted that the sign of $`\dot{r}_n`$ and thereby the monotony of the dynamics is only a function of $`E_n`$ and $`C_n`$ when neglecting the viscosity-term. Because $`A_n`$ is outside the brackets it will affect the response-time of the dynamics. Now the dynamics of the n$`^{\text{th}}`$ amplitude is only determined by three local variables:

$$\stackrel{}{V}_n=(E_n,C_n,A_n).$$

Even though this new set of local variables ($`\stackrel{}{V}_n`$) form a efficient phase-space it should not be confused with the actual 2N-dimensional phase-space of the free variables in the model.

### 4.2 The Local Attractor of the model

Since $`\stackrel{}{V}_n`$ is a local phase-space the trajectory of $`\stackrel{}{V}_n(t)`$ in time will describe a three dimensional local attractor of the n$`^{\text{th}}`$ shell dynamics. Fig.6 show the local attractor of the 14$`^{\text{th}}`$ shell during a time-span of two successive bursts where some additional features is placed to explain the dynamics of the attractor:

First we note that the trajectory is projected down on a $`(E_n,C_n)`$-plane to help giving a three dimensional understanding of the attractor. Then we focus on the vertical line which correspond to the Kolmogorov fixed-point given by $`(E_n,C_n,A_N)=(1,0,)`$. Right after every bursts the trajectories encircles this line during the relaxations. As the oscillations die out the dynamics slow down making the trajectories stay close to the region of $`\dot{r}_n0`$ in $`\stackrel{}{V}_n`$. In Fig.6 the curved sheet is the manifold of $`\dot{r}_n=0`$ derived from Eq.8 and it is seen how the trajectory stays close to the manifold. ( note that the trajectory is shown thinner for negative $`\dot{r}_n`$)
When a burst approaches from the lower shells it affects the configuration of local shells forcing the trajectory away from the manifold. This causes $`\dot{r}_n`$ and thereby $`r_n`$ to increase rapidly making the shell participate the burst. During the burst the trajectory approaches the Kolmogorov fixed-point-line around which it begins to circle again etc. The same behaviour repeats throughout the evolution of the model making the local attractor capture all the general dynamics of the model.
Every other shell participating in the burst has qualitatively the same local attractor with the same characteristics. It should be noted that if the viscous term only affects the last shells, abandoning the inertial range, the model would still produce bursts and in this case the oscillations would not bend off but follow the Kolmogorov fixed-point strait down until the next burst approaches.

## 5 The cause of intermittency

From the behaviour of the local attractor it is possible to explain the intermittent shift between bursts and oscillatory relaxation of the model. What is needed is the answers to the following two questions: Why is the manifold of $`\dot{r}_n=0`$ stable, attracting the oscillatory state into a relaxing period and what changes this stability as a burst approaches.

### 5.1 Creation of the relaxing period.

To analyse the stability of the manifold we have to know the flow in the phase-space $`\stackrel{}{V}_n`$ and this will be done by estimating $`\dot{A}_n,\dot{E}_n,\dot{C}_n`$:
First we assume again $`r_n2^{A_n}`$ to get $`\dot{r}_n\mathrm{ln}(2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{A_n}\dot{A}_n`$ which will be used to estimate $`\dot{A}_n`$. Then we insert $`\dot{A}_n`$ into the transformations of Eq.6 getting $`\dot{E}_n`$ and $`\dot{C}_n`$ as a function of $`\dot{A}_{n+j},j=\{2,1,1,2\}`$. To proceed we note that because of the regular dynamics during oscillations all the local variables for the different shells are roughly equal despite a Kolmogorov-scaling of the mean values ($`A_n`$). This makes us assume the following condition between the local variables:

$$(A_{n+j},E_{n+j},C_{n+j})(A_n\frac{j}{3},E_n,C_n),j=\{2,1,1,2\}$$
(9)
When inserted into the different $`\dot{A}_{n+j}`$ it causes $`\dot{E}_n`$ and $`\dot{C}_n`$ to resemble $`\dot{A}_n`$ within pre-factors in front of the coupling- and viscous-terms.
As result the monotony of $`\dot{E}_n`$ and $`\dot{C}_n`$ follows that of $`\dot{A}_n`$.
Now the general flow in $`\stackrel{}{V}_n`$ only depends on the sign of $`\dot{r}_n`$, changing at the manifold and indicated by the arrows showed in Fig.6. From the orientation of the flow and the position of the manifold the trajectory is caused to close in on the manifold and slowly drift downwards creating a relaxing period.

### 5.2 Bursts

The stability of the manifold and thereby of the relaxing state depends critically on the condition of Eq.9 used in the derivation above. The thing that destroys this condition is the approach of a burst from the lower shells, affecting only $`r_{n2},r_{n1}`$. The manifold then loses its stability and the state is forced into a region of strong positive $`\dot{r}_n`$ making the shell participate in the burst. Now as $`r_n`$ changes violently it causes the manifold of the higher shells to become unstable etc. and thus the burst spreads through the shells because of a chain-reaction.

## 6 Conclusion

In this article the standard GOY shell model has been analysed on the basis of its dynamics rather than its statistics. A detailed analysis of the time-evolution revels the following:
The dynamics of the model follows two different states where violent bursts are interchanged by an oscillatory relaxing state. It is showed that the dynamics of the shells are mutually correlated and the burst travels through the shells like a front. Because bursts in the model cascade nearly unaffected through the shells in the inertial range, each set of neighbouring shells entering the coupling-terms can be seen as local phase-spaces of the corresponding shells, and when expressed in a simple “Taylor-series” base their dynamics describe an approximative attractor of the model. From the dynamics of the local attractor the intermittency of the model is explained.

### 6.1 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people for fruitful discussions concerning this work: Ken Haste Andersen, Jacob Sparre Andersen, Tomas Bohr, Jesper Borg, Paolo Muratore Ginanneschi, Martin van Hecke, Anders Johansen, Jens Juul Rasmussen, Bjarne Stenum and my supervisor Mogens Høgh Jensen.


format: text

text:
# Improvement of the extended P+QQ interaction by modifying the monopole field

## 1 Introduction

An extended $`P+QQ`$ force model  has been applied to even-$`A`$ nuclei in the $`f_{7/2}`$ shell region, in the previous paper  (hereafter referred to as (I)). The exact shell model calculations have shown that the $`P_0+P_2+QQ+V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ interaction well reproduces the observed energy levels and $`E2`$ transition probabilities of the collective yrast states as well as the binding energies in the $`A`$=46, 48 and 50 nuclei with $`NZ`$. The correspondence between theory and experiment is almost comparable to that attained by the full $`fp`$ shell model calculations with realistic effective interactions .

The $`P_0+QQ`$ or $`P_0+P_2+QQ`$ force  has been regarded as a schematic interaction which represents typical correlations in nuclei. The results in (I), however, told us that the extended $`P+QQ`$ force accompanied by the $`J`$-independent proton-neutron ($`p`$-$`n`$) force $`V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ is more than a mere schematic interaction and reflects the important aspects of the real interaction. The interaction serves for quantitative description of nuclear structure in the $`fp`$ shell region. This conclusion is consistent with the discussion of Dufour and Zuker  that the residual part of a realistic effective interaction obtained after extracting the monopole terms is dominated by the multipole forces ($`P_0`$, $`QQ`$ etc.). In our model, the $`V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ force nicely plays the role of the average monopole field and recovers the deficiency of the binding energy given by the $`P_0+P_2+QQ`$ force.

The calculated results in (I), however, revealed two flaws of the $`P_0+P_2+QQ+V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ interaction: (1) noncollective states except the collective yrast states have a tendency to go down; (2) binding energies and level schemes become worse as $`N`$ separates from $`Z`$, especially when $`N`$ is close to 28 as 48Ca. These flaws remind us of the divergence from experiment when the Kuo-Brown (KB) interaction  is applied to systems of many valence nucleons 48Ca, 49Ca etc . The divergence was cured by modifying the monopole components of the $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ interaction matrix elements . The power of the modified interaction KB3  was shown in the exact shell model calculations . The modified aspect of another effective interaction FPD6  refers also to the monopole terms . These indicate the importance of the monopole terms in spectroscopy . Our interaction has the most important term $`V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ as the average monopole field but does not include the monopole terms which affect spectroscopy. It is a natural next concern to investigate whether the additional monopole terms can remove or not the flaws mentioned above.

For this purpose, we carry out exact shell model calculations in the same model space ($`f_{7/2},p_{3/2},p_{1/2}`$) as in (I), where the model space was shown to be useful when the average monopole field ($`V_{\pi \nu }^0`$) independent of the extent of space is properly treated . We introduce additional monopole terms so that their forms are as simple as possible and the number of new parameters is minimal. The modified interaction gives us satisfactory results for the $`f_{7/2}`$ shell nuclei. This paper presents only a short review for even-$`A`$ nuclei, because the conclusions in (I) for the collective yrast states of $`NZ`$ even-$`A`$ nuclei are hardly changed. Our major attention is devoted to odd-$`A`$ nuclei, the structure of which is expected to be sensitive to the effective interaction employed. There are successful works by Martínez-Pinedo et al.  in which the $`A`$=47 and 49 nuclei are exhaustively studied by the full $`fp`$ shell model with the KB3 interaction. We examine the quality of our model by comparing our results with theirs as well as experimental ones. We shall also show that our model describes $`A`$=51 nuclei very well.

In Section 2, the additional monopole terms are introduced into our model and new parameters are determined for 48Ca and 47Ti. Section 3 makes a report about the effects of the modification on even-$`A`$ nuclei. Section 4 examines the results of calculations in the cross conjugate nuclei (47Ti, 49V) and (47V, 49Cr). The results for $`A`$=51 are shown in Section 5. Concluding remarks are given in Section 6.

## 2 modification of the monopole filed

We start with the same model as in (I), i.e., the $`P_0+P_2+QQ+V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ interaction in the model space $`(f_{7/2},p_{3/2},p_{1/2})`$ with the following parameter set called ”Set A” in this paper (see (I) in detail):

Set A: $`\epsilon _{7/2}=0.0,\epsilon _{3/2}=1.98,\epsilon _{1/2}=3.61,`$ (1)
$`g_0=0.48(42/A),g_2=0.36(42/A)^{5/3},`$
$`\chi ^{}=0.30(42/A)^{5/3},k^0=2.23(42/A)\text{(in MeV).}`$
This model succeeds in describing the collective yrast states of $`NZ`$ nuclei, but cannot well reproduce binding energies and level schemes in nuclei with $`N28`$. We consider 48Ca as a conspicuous example in Fig. 1. The ground-state energy calculated with the parameter set A is -3.72 MeV against the experimental energy -7.04 MeV. The obtained level scheme is shown in the first column A in Fig. 1. There is a significant discrepancy between the original model (column A) and experiment (column exp).

We used the naive single-particle energies with small spaces from the observed levels of 41Ca in the Set A. One may attribute the lowering of excited states to the small spaces $`ϵ_{7/2}ϵ_{3/2}`$ and $`ϵ_{7/2}ϵ_{1/2}`$. The single-particle energies, however, do not very much affect the level scheme in the $`P_0+P_2+QQ`$ force model, as mentioned in (I). If a little strengthened $`QQ`$ force is used for the single-particle energies of Kuo and Brown , energy levels obtained are almost unchanged for the collective states in $`NZ`$ nuclei. The effect on 48Ca is shown in the second column B of Fig. 1. The small energy gap between $`0_1^+`$ (the ground state) and $`2_1^+`$ is little improved. The use of the Kuo-Brown single-particle energies which are often employed will be convenient for comparison of our interaction with other effective interactions. We therefore use the new set of parameters (called ”Set B”) for the $`P_0+P_2+QQ`$ force in this paper,

Set B: $`\epsilon _{7/2}=0.0,\epsilon _{3/2}=2.1,\epsilon _{1/2}=3.9,`$ (2)
$`g_0=0.48(42/A),g_2=0.36(42/A)^{5/3},`$
$`\chi ^{}=0.31(42/A)^{5/3},k^0=2.23(42/A)\text{(in MeV).}`$
In 48Ca, the dominant component of the ground state $`0_1^+`$ is the neutron configuration $`(f_{7/2})^8`$, and main components of the lowest excited states are $`(f_{7/2})^7(p_{3/2})`$ and $`(f_{7/2})^7(p_{1/2})`$. The deep binding energy of $`0_1^+`$ is probably due to the large correlation energy of the closed subshell configuration $`(f_{7/2})^8`$, which is given by

$$\underset{J=\text{even}}{}(2J+1)f_{7/2}f_{7/2}J,T=1|V|f_{7/2}f_{7/2}J,T=1.$$
(3)
If we enlarge the value of Eq. (3), we can get a deep binding energy of 48Ca. The enlargement of the $`f_{7/2}`$ interaction matrix elements gives a smaller energy gain to the excited states than $`0_1^+`$, and hence extends the energy gap between $`2_1^+`$ and $`0_1^+`$. The $`2_1^+0_1^+`$ energy gap is further increased by weakening the interaction matrix elements $`f_{7/2}rJ,T=1|V|f_{7/2}rJ,T=1`$ ($`r=p_{3/2}`$ or $`p_{1/2}`$). Note that only the isovector interactions with $`T=1`$ take action in 48Ca.

Therefore, a simple way to improve the binding energy and level scheme of 48Ca is to add the following correction to the isovector $`(T=1)`$ interactions:

$$\underset{ab}{}\underset{J}{}\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(abJ)\underset{M\kappa }{}A_{JM1\kappa }^+(ab)A_{JM1\kappa }(ab),$$
(4)
where $`A_{JM\tau \kappa }^{}(ab)=[c_a^{}c_b^{}]_{JM\tau \kappa }/\sqrt{1+\delta _{ab}}`$. Neglecting the $`J`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(abJ)`$, in this paper, we make further simplification

$$\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(abJ)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})\hfill & \text{ for }a=b=f_{7/2}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }k^1(f_{7/2}r)\hfill & \text{ for }r=p_{3/2}\text{ or }p_{1/2}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ for the others.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Then, we have the isovector correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^1`$ which belongs to the monopole terms discussed in Refs. ,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(f_{7/2}f_{7/2}){\displaystyle \underset{J=\text{even}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{M\kappa }{}}A_{JM1\kappa }^{}(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})A_{JM1\kappa }(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(f_{7/2}r){\displaystyle \underset{br}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{M\kappa }{}}A_{JM1\kappa }^{}(f_{7/2}b)A_{JM1\kappa }(f_{7/2}b).`$
We can expect $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})`$ being attractive and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(f_{7/2}r)`$ being repulsive, from the above consideration. Trial calculations in 48Ca recommend the following corrections to the parameter set B, which we call ”Set C”:

Set C: Set B accompanied by the corrections (7)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})=0.14,\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(f_{7/2}r)=0.05\text{(in MeV)}.`$
The parameter set C yields the level scheme in the third column C of Fig. 1. The agreement with the observed levels is satisfactory. Figure 1 testifies that the $`P_0+P_2+QQ`$ force is very much improved by adding the isovector monopole terms as Eq. (6).

Let us test the validity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^1`$ with the parameters (7) in odd-$`A`$ nuclei which are sensitive to the interaction employed. Figure 2 illustrates the comparison between calculated yrast levels and observed ones in 47Ti, where only negative-parity states are considered in our model space $`(f_{7/2},p_{3/2},p_{1/2})`$. The results in the columns A, B and C are obtained by using the parameter sets A, B and C, respectively. The results A and B show that the $`P_0+P_2+QQ`$ force fairly well reproduces the collective ground-state band on the $`5/2^{}`$ state but lays the noncollective low-spin states $`3/2^{}`$ and $`1/2^{}`$ too much lower. This tendency is one of the flaws of the $`P_0+P_2+QQ`$ force. The column C indicates that the isovector monopole terms in $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^1`$ push the $`3/2^{}`$ and $`1/2^{}`$ states up to the correct positions. However, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^1`$ disturbs the order of the adjacent levels $`(5/2^{},7/2^{})`$ and $`(9/2^{},11/2^{})`$ at low energy and lowers the energies of high-spin states above $`13/2^{}`$. Furthermore, the introduction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^1`$ changes the binding energy of not only 48Ca but also the other nuclei. Especially, the additional isovector pairing interactions $`f_{7/2}f_{7/2}J,T=1|V|f_{7/2}f_{7/2}J,T=1`$ operate on the main configurations of the ground states and cause overbinding.

These secondary troubles can be cured by introducing additional isoscalar $`(T=0)`$ monopole terms and by weakening the $`J`$-independent isoscalar force $`V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ (note that they are $`p`$-$`n`$ interactions). First, let us write the isoscalar correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^0`$ in a form similar to $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^1`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V^0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}f_{7/2}){\displaystyle \underset{J=\text{odd}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}A_{JM00}^{}(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})A_{JM00}(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}r){\displaystyle \underset{br}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}A_{JM00}^{}(f_{7/2}b)A_{JM00}(f_{7/2}b).`$
We determine the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}r)`$ so that the inverse order of $`(5/2^{},7/2^{})`$ and $`(9/2^{},11/2^{})`$ are restored and the high-spin levels get near to the observed ones. Secondly, we weaken the strength $`k^0`$ of $`V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ so as to obtain relatively good binding energies for nuclei from $`A`$=42 to $`A`$=51 as a whole. The obtained parameter set, which we call ”Set D”, is

Set D: Set C accompanied by the corrections (9)
$`k^0=2.15(42/A),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})=0.18,\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}r)=0.07\text{(in MeV)}.`$
The parameter set D yields the level scheme in the fourth column D of Fig. 2. The energy levels of the ground-state band are well reproduced as those of the original model A and the $`3/2^{}`$ and $`1/2^{}`$ levels lie at good positions. The agreement with the observed levels is considerably good. The $`p`$-$`n`$ interactions $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^0`$ and $`V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ do not affect the spectrum of the 48Ca nucleus which has only valence neutrons. The third column of Fig. 1 for 48Ca is nothing but the result obtained by using the parameter set D. We can determine the strengths of $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}r)`$ also in 46V, because the relative energy of the lowest $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ states in odd-odd nuclei is sensitive to these parameters. If we enlarge the absolute values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}r)`$, we get better energies for $`T=0`$ low-spin states but too high energies for $`T=0`$ high-spin states in 46V. The same tendency is seen in the column D of Fig. 2, where the larger the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}r)`$ become, the higher the high-spin levels go up. Figures 1 and 2 say that the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^1(f_{7/2}r)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}f_{7/2})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0(f_{7/2}r)`$ must not change too much from the values in Eqs. (7) and (9).

Using the parameter set D, we obtain the ground-state energies shown in Fig. 3, where the obtained result is compared with the result of (I) (cal A) and with the experimental ground-state energies (see (I)). The modification in this paper improves the binding energies of nuclei with large $`T`$ such as the Ca isotopes, as compared with the original model. Figure 3, however, tells slight overbinding of the $`NZ`$ nuclei with small $`T`$. For instance, the model (denoted by +) lowers a little the excitation energies of the $`T=1`$ and $`T=2`$ isobaric analogue states in 48Cr, while the original model (denoted by $``$) reproduces them. We keep the fixed values (7) and (9) of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0`$ for all the $`A`$=42-51 nuclei in Fig. 3, but the figure suggests that the additional monopole terms are too strong for the $`A`$=50 and $`A`$=51 nuclei with large $`T`$. Possibly the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^0`$ should have $`A`$ dependence. The present modification still leaves a room for fine improvement. Our concern is, however, to sketch out functions of various typical interactions. The guiding principle in this paper is to cure the above-mentioned two flaws of the original model by using as few number of parameters as possible. We are content with the results in Figs. 1, 2 and 3. The modified model with the parameter set D fairly well reproduces the binding energies and level schemes of 48Ca and 47Ti. We shall examine this modified model in the following sections.

## 3 Effects of the additional monopole terms on even-$`A`$ nuclei

Let us see the effects of the additional monopole terms on even-A nuclei, to which the original model without these terms is applied in (I).

The original $`P_0+P_2+QQ+V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ interaction well describes the collective yrast states of $`NZ`$ even-even nuclei. The additional monopole terms with the parameters (9) have little effect on these nuclei, though we do not show figures of the results except 50Cr. The discussions about the collective yrast states of 46Ti, 48Cr and 50Cr in (I) remain valid also in the present modified model. The level structure including non-yrast levels and $`B(E2)`$ in the ground-state band are hardly changed in 46Ti and 48Cr. The backbending plot of the 48Cr rotational band is fairly well and the quality is the same as that in (I). Speaking strictly, the additional monopole terms do not improve the excitation energies of $`8_1^+`$, $`10_1^+`$ and $`12_1^+`$ in the backbending region. The somewhat awkward change from the most collective states ($`0_1^+8_1^+`$) to the high-spin states in the calculated ground-state band of 48Cr seems to originate in the $`P_0+P_2+QQ`$ force.

The modified model (D) produces a little better level structure than the original model (A) in 50Cr, as shown in Fig. 4. Not only the yrast levels but also other levels correspond better to the observed levels. The low-spin states $`2_2^+`$, $`4_2^+`$, $`2_3^+`$ and $`0_2^+`$, and the high-spin states $`13_2^+`$, $`13_3^+`$, $`14_2^+`$, $`14_3^+`$, $`15_2^+`$, $`15_3^+`$, $`16_2^+`$ and $`17_2^+`$ come nearer to the observed positions. In 50Cr, however, the $`B(E2)`$ values between the most collective yrast states are considerably reduced: $`B(E2:J_1(J2)_1)`$ in e2fm4 is 197 for $`J=2`$; 277 for $`J=4`$; 122 for $`J=6`$; 121 for $`J=8`$ in the calculation D, while it is 215 for $`J=2`$; 302 for $`J=4`$; 211 for $`J=6`$; 200 for $`J=8`$ in the calculation A. The modification of the model has a tendency to push high-spin yrast states upward, as seen in Fig. 4. The same tendency is observed in the results of 46Ti and 48Cr.

The modified model works clearly better as compared with the original model, when $`N`$ separates from $`Z`$, as in 48Ca. We show the level scheme of 50Ti as a good example in Fig. 5, where yrast levels and other low-lying levels obtained by the original model (A) and modified one (D) are compared with the observed levels. The additional monopole terms move the yrast levels above $`5_1^+`$ very nearer to the observed ones, and push the non-yrast levels upward, laying them at good positions.

Next, we examine the applicability of our modified model in odd-odd nuclei which are most sensitive to the interaction employed. The previous paper (I) has shown that the $`P_0+P_2+QQ+V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ interaction can describe the yrast level structure in 46V, 48V and 50Mn beyond expectation. The introduction of the additional monopole terms reproduces relatively better results in these nuclei. In 46V, for instance, the lowest $`3^+`$ state with $`T=0`$ lies at 0.24 MeV in the original model A, while it lies at 0.59 MeV, coming near to the observed excitation energy 0.80 MeV, in the modified model D. The yrast and non-yrast levels correspond better to the observed ones in the present modified model, though the high-spin state $`15_1^+`$ goes up a little.

As shown in Fig. 6, the relative positions of the $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ states are improved also in 50Mn. The original model (A) lays the lowest $`T=0`$ state with $`J^\pi =1^+`$ below the $`T=1`$, $`0_1^+`$ state, but the modified model (D) correctly yields the ground state with $`T=1`$, $`J^\pi =0^+`$. If we regard the $`T=0`$ yrast levels with $`J5`$ as a collective band on the band-head state $`5_1^+`$, the band is well reproduced by our model. The additional monopole terms push non-yrast (noncollective) levels toward the observed ones. The yrast states with smaller spins ($`J<5`$) than the band-head state, however, remain at low energy, and hence the order of low-lying levels does not correspond to the experimental order.

The same problem is observed in odd-odd nuclei away from $`N=Z`$, though the introduction of the additional monopole terms is very effective in improving the level scheme. The modified model well describes the collective yrast band, but cannot reproduce the correct order of low-lying levels and fails to give the correct ground state in 48V and 48Sc. In 48V, the lowest state $`2_1^+`$ is at -0.20 MeV below the ground state $`4_1^+`$ in the calculation D. The difference between the calculated and observed yrast levels is 0.5 MeV at most. We show another example in Fig. 7, where results of the calculations A, B, C and D are compared with the observed level scheme of 48Sc. Note here that Fig. 7 is drawn in a small-scale as compared with the previous figures. The additional monopole terms produce very improved results. The correspondences of the excitation energies and level density between theory and experiment become better in the modified model D. Although the calculation cannot reproduce the correct ground state, the discrepancy does not exceed 0.4 MeV. The results in odd-odd nuclei suggest that fine improvement would be possible in our extended $`P+QQ`$ model.

## 4 Results in the cross-conjugate nuclei 47Ti - 49V and 47V - 49Cr

The accumulation of experimental and theoretical studies has been clarifying the structure of $`A`$=47 and $`A`$=49 nuclei. Martínez-Pinedo et al.  made an exhaustive study of these nuclei by the full $`fp`$ shell model calculation using the KB3 interaction. These nuclei are very suitable for examining the quality of our model. We direct our attention to the pairs of nuclei 47Ti - 49V and 47V - 49Cr which have the cross-conjugate configurations ($`(f_{7/2})^{7p}`$ and $`(f_{7/2})^{7h}`$) in the single $`j`$ limit. The energy levels of 47V and 47Cr (49Cr and 49Mn) are equivalent in our model because of the isospin invariant Hamiltonian. We discuss the structure of 47V and 49Cr for simplicity. Only negative-parity states of these nuclei are considered in the model space. We use the effective charge $`e_{eff}=0.5e`$ and the harmonic-oscillator range parameter $`b_0=1.01A^{1/6}`$ fm in the calculations. These values are the same as those in Refs. .

### 4.1 47Ti - 49V

We have already seen in Fig. 2 that the extended $`P+QQ`$ model satisfactorily reproduces the yrast levels of 47Ti. This is clearer in the spin-energy graph in Fig. 8, where our model (cal D) correctly traces the observed staggering gait depending on the spins $`(2J\pm 1)/2`$. The result of our extended $`P+QQ`$ model is almost comparable to that of Martínez-Pinedo et al. with the KB3 interaction. The KB3 interaction reproduces better the $`17/2_1^{}`$, $`19/2_1^{}`$ and $`21/2_1^{}`$ levels than ours, while our interaction correctly reproduces the order of $`9/2_1^{}`$ and $`11/2_1^{}`$ and the position of the high-spin level $`27/2_1^{}`$ as compared with the KB3. The insufficiency of our model with respect to the energy of $`21/2_1^{}`$ is possibly related to the remaining flaw around $`8_1^+12_1^+`$ in 48Cr mentioned in the previous section. The staggering in the spin-energy graph of Fig. 8 reminds us of that in the odd-odd nuclei 46V, 48V and 50Mn discussed in (I). There must be a similar mechanism of excitation (rotation) in the yrast bands of 47Ti and 48V.

Table 1 shows electric quadrupole properties of the yrast and other states in 47Ti. The calculated $`B(E2)`$ values correspond to the tendency of the observed ones  to some extent, but the quality of the data may not be sufficient . We calculated the spectroscopic quadrupole moment $`Q_{spec}`$ and intrinsic quadrupole moments $`Q_0^{(s)}`$ and $`Q_0^{(t)}`$ for the yrast states in addition to $`B(E2)`$. (We use the same notations $`Q_0^{(s)}`$ and $`Q_0^{(t)}`$ as Martínez-Pinedo et al. .) With respect to these electric quadrupole properties, our predictions in the smaller model space $`(f_{7/2},p_{3/2},p_{1/2})`$ are very similar to those of the full $`fp`$ shell model with the KB3 interaction.

For the ground state $`5/2_1^{}`$, The calculated spectroscopic quadrupole moment $`Q_{spec}=23.6`$ $`e`$ fm2 is nearly equal to the value 22.7 $`e`$ fm2 of Ref.  but does not well reproduce the observed value 30.3 $`e`$ fm2. The calculated results show that $`B(E2:JJ1)`$ is larger than $`B(E2:JJ2)`$ up to $`J=9/2`$, while $`B(E2:JJ2)`$ exceeds $`B(E2:JJ1)`$ above $`J=9/2`$ in the yrast band. The full $`fp`$ shell model with the KB3 interaction seems to give a similar prediction for the $`B(E2)`$ ratio from the values of $`Q_0^{(t)}`$. The observed $`\gamma `$ transitions  are consistent with the theoretical prediction up to $`15/2_1^{}`$ but show a different feature from the prediction for $`J17/2_1^{}`$. In the calculation, $`Q_{spec}`$ changes the value considerably at $`17/2_1^{}`$ and above it the $`B(E2)`$ values become smaller. Our model gives different $`B(E2)`$ values to the $`3/2_1^{}`$ and $`1/2_1^{}`$ states from Ref. .

Energy levels of $`{}_{23}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{49}`$V26 obtained by the present model are compared with observed levels  in Fig. 9. Our model reproduces not only the yrast levels but also the second lowest levels from $`J^\pi =3/2^{}`$ to $`11/2^{}`$, and nearly traces the staggering gait in the spin-energy graph of the yrast states. For the yrast levels, the correspondence between theory and experiment in 49V is somewhat worse than that in 47Ti at high spin. It is, however, notable that the two spin-energy graphs of the cross-conjugate nuclei 47Ti and 49V in Figs. 8 and 9 resemble each other and are well described by our model.

Table 2 shows calculated $`B(E2)`$ values and observed ones , and calculated values of the spectroscopic quadrupole moment $`Q_{spec}`$. The results of Martínez-Pinedo et al.  are also shown for comparison. The $`B(E2)`$ values obtained by our model are comparable with those of Ref. , and roughly consistent with the observed $`B(E2)`$ values though the data are of poor quality. The spectroscopic quadrupole moment of the ground state $`7/2_1^{}`$ obtained by our model is nearly equal to that of Ref. . The calculated values of $`Q_{spec}`$ say that the yrast band changes the structure at the $`17/2_1^{}`$ state. Correspondingly, the absolute $`B(E2)`$ values and the ratio $`B(E2:J_1(J2)_1)/B(E2:J_1(J1)_1)`$ show different features before and after $`17/2_1^{}`$. This structure change appears in the spin-energy graph of Fig. 9, where the staggering is large from $`9/2_1^{}`$ to $`11/2_1^{}`$ and from $`13/2_1^{}`$ to $`15/2_1^{}`$, and then becomes gentle above the $`15/2_1^{}`$ state, both in theory and experiment.

### 4.2 47V - 49Cr

Figure 10 shows calculated energy levels and observed ones  of $`{}_{23}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{47}`$V24: the yrast levels and other low-lying levels. The experimental energy of the $`21/2_1^{}`$ state shown in Fig. 10 is chosen from Ref. , which is different from that of Ref. . The present model excellently reproduces the yrast levels up to the $`23/2^{}`$ state. The correspondence between theory and experiment with respect to other low-lying states is also considerably well. Our model reproduces better the high-spin levels $`27/2_1^{}`$ and $`29/2_1^{}`$ than the full $`fp`$ shell model with the KB3 interaction , and correctly yields the regular order of the pair levels ($`25/2_1^{}`$, $`27/2_1^{}`$) and the inverse order of ($`31/2_1^{}`$, $`29/2_1^{}`$). However, the observed staggering gait from $`25/2_1^{}`$ to $`31/2_1^{}`$ in the spin-energy graph is not well reproduced in contrast to the success of Refs. . This is a question to our model which is expected to describe the collective band well. We shall touch upon this question in the next subsection.

In Table 3, calculated electric quadrupole properties $`B(E2)`$, $`Q_{spec}`$, $`Q_0^{(s)}`$ and $`Q_0^{(t)}`$ are compared with those of Ref.  and with the observed $`B(E2)`$ values. Our results, which are very similar to those of the full $`fp`$ shell model calculation with the KB3 interaction except the $`17/2_1^{}`$ and $`17/2_2^{}`$ states, correspond well to the observed $`B(E2)`$ values except $`B(E2:25/2_1^{}21/2_1^{})`$. The calculated large values of $`B(E2:7/2_1^{}5/2_1^{})`$ and $`B(E2:5/2_1^{}3/2_1^{})`$ explain the observed strong $`\gamma `$ transitions $`7/2_1^{}5/2_1^{}3/2_1^{}`$ , and the large values of $`B(E2:J_1^{}(J2)_1^{})`$ when $`J=11/2`$, 15/2, 19/2 and 23/2 are consistent with the observed cascade transitions $`23/2_1^{}19/2_1^{}15/2_1^{}11/2_1^{}7/2_1^{}`$ . Other observed $`\gamma `$ transitions for the high-spin states are not necessarily understood by our result that $`B(E2:J_1^{}(J2)_1^{})`$ is much larger than $`B(E2:J_1^{}(J1)_1^{})`$ above $`7/2_1^{}`$. The calculated spectroscopic quadrupole moment $`Q_{spec}`$ suggests a change in the structure of the yrast band at $`17/2_1^{}`$, which is consistent with the change appearing near $`17/2_1^{}`$ in the Coulomb energy difference between the mirror nuclei 47V and 47Cr . Our model and the full $`fp`$ shell model with the KB3 interaction give different $`Q_0^{(s)}`$ and $`Q_0^{(t)}`$ for the $`17/2_1^{}`$ and $`17/2_2^{}`$ states. The two states in the latter model (where the two are close by) seem to be in reverse order to those in our model. Experimental data about the $`17/2^{}`$ states are unfortunately missing for discussing the difference. This is possibly due to the degeneracy of the $`17/2_1^{}`$ and $`19/2_1^{}`$ states predicted by our model. The value of $`Q_{spec}`$ shows a moderate change for the $`17/2_1^{}`$, $`19/2_1^{}`$, $`23/2_1^{}`$, $`27/2_1^{}`$ and $`31/2_1^{}`$ states after the structure change (maybe band crossing) at $`17/2_1^{}`$ in our model.

High-spin states of the $`{}_{24}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{49}`$Cr25 nucleus were identified by recent highly efficient experiments . In Fig. 11, we compare calculated energy levels of 49Cr with the observed ones. Our model well describes the energies of the yrast states as a whole. There are slight deviations for the high-spin states $`23/2_1^{}`$, $`25/2_1^{}`$ and $`29/2_1^{}`$. Namely, our model does not reproduce enough the observed magnitudes of the stagger from $`21/2_1^{}`$ to $`23/2_1^{}`$ and from $`25/2_1^{}`$ to $`27/2_1^{}`$ in the spin-energy graph. The full $`fp`$ shell model calculation with the KB3 interaction  correctly reproduces the inverse order of these pair levels. This is another question to our model, in contrast with the success in 47Ti and 49V. There is a confusing difference between the spin-energy graphs of the cross conjugate nuclei 47V and 49Cr. Their staggering gaits up to $`19/2_1^{}`$ are somewhat different between 47V and 49Cr, i.e., the energies of the pair states $`(4J+1)/2^{}`$ and $`(4J+3)/2^{}`$ are close by in 47V but are different in 49Cr, which is well traced by our model. Above $`19/2_1^{}`$, our model predicts similar staggering gaits for 47V and 49Cr (which suggests the dominance of the configurations $`(f_{7/2})^{7p}`$ and $`(f_{7/2})^{7h}`$), while the two experimental graphs do not show any regular behavior. This is contrary to the fact that our model well reproduces the yrast bands of the cross-conjugate odd-odd nuclei 46V and 50Mn (see (I)). The staggering gaits from $`25/2_1^{}`$ to $`27/2_1^{}`$ and from $`29/2_1^{}`$ to $`31/2_1^{}`$ are asymmetrical between 47V and 49Cr. The subtle but strange behaviors are curious for us to understand, though the delicate difference in the interaction matrix elements from the realistic effective interaction KB3 could affect the staggering in our model. The interesting fine structure should be investigated further experimentally and theoretically.

Electric quadrupole properties of the yrast states in 49Cr are listed in Table 4. The results of our model for $`B(E2)`$, $`Q_0^{(s)}`$ and $`Q_0^{(t)}`$ are similar to those of Ref. . The calculated $`B(E2)`$ values are roughly consistent with the observed ones. The calculated spectroscopic quadrupole moment shows a difference between the two sets of the states ($`17/2_1^{}`$, $`21/2_1^{}`$) and ($`19/2_1^{}`$, $`23/2_1^{}`$), and indicates a distinct change of the structure above $`23/2_1^{}`$ in the yrast band. This feature is different from that of the cross conjugate nucleus 47V but similar to that of 49V, which suggests the contribution of the upper orbits above $`f_{7/2}`$.

In Fig. 12, we summarize the observed yrast levels of 47Ti, 47V, 49V and 49Cr in the spin-energy graph. The yrast levels appear to be scattered around the $`J(J+1)`$ curve of the rotation model, where the static moment of inertia is fixed as $`I_{mom}`$=11 MeV-1 and the energy of the $`5/2_1^{}`$ state is set to be zero. This figure indicates a similarity at the beginning of the band on the $`5/2_1^{}`$ state between 47V and 49Cr and also between 47V and 47Ti. Martínez-Pinedo et al.  analyzed old data of 47V and 49Cr by different curves of the $`J(J+1)`$ law. In our model, the spin-energy graphs of 47V and 49Cr do not display a very large difference, though the spectroscopic quadrupole moment shows differences as mentioned above ($`Q_{spec}`$ shows a drastic change at $`25/2_1^{}`$ in 49Cr but not in 47V). The asymmetrical positions of ($`25/2_1^{}`$, $`27/2_1^{}`$) and ($`29/2_1^{}`$, $`31/2_1^{}`$) in 47V and 49Cr mentioned above are visible in Fig. 12.

## 5 Results in 51Mn and 51Cr

The extended $`P+QQ`$ model is expected to be applicable to $`A=51`$ nuclei from Fig. 3. In this section, we show calculated results in 51Mn and 51Cr.

Figure 13 illustrates the comparison of energy levels between the modified model (D) and experiment in 51Mn. Our model reproduces the collective yrast levels on $`5/2_1^{}`$ at good energy and in the correct order of spins, except that the space between $`15/2_1^{}`$ and $`17/2_1^{}`$ is too narrow. (The awkward reproduction of energy in the middle spin region in our calculation is similar to that in 48Cr.) The additional monopole terms improve the positions of the low-spin levels $`3/2_1^{}`$ and $`1/2_1^{}`$, the spins of which are smaller than $`J=5/2`$ of the band-head state. The excitation energies of observed non-yrast levels are nearly reproduced.

Let us list calculated electric quadrupole properties of the yrast states in Table 5, in order to see the structure of 51Mn. Table 5 shows that the yrast states from $`5/2^{}`$ to $`15/2^{}`$ are connected by large values of $`B(E2:JJ2)`$ and $`B(E2:JJ1)`$. We can regard these states as members of a very collective band. The spectroscopic quadrupole moment $`Q_{spec}`$ abruptly changes the sign at $`17/2_1^{}`$, which suggests a structure change similar to that at $`10_1^+`$ in 50Cr (see (I)). The high-spin yrast states on $`17/2_1^{}`$ that have still relatively large $`B(E2)`$ values can be regarded to belong to a different-natured band. The awkward gait from $`15/2_1^{}`$ to $`17/2_1^{}`$ in the calculated result reflects the abrupt change in the structure. We can see such a sign in the observed level scheme of 51Mn.

Figure 14 shows the results in 51Cr. The energy levels observed in 51Cr are excellently described by our model. The extended $`P+QQ`$ model with the additional monopole terms reproduces not only the ground-state band but also the apparently second band, at good energy and in the correct order of spins. The inverse orders of ($`13/2_1^{}`$, $`15/2_1^{}`$) and ($`1/2_1^{}`$, $`3/2_1^{}`$) in 51Cr are reproduced by our model. The calculated energies of the $`J_3^{}`$ states roughly correspond to those of the observed third band on $`3/2_2^{}`$.

Calculated electric quadrupole properties of the yrast states of 51Cr are shown in Table 6. This table indicates that there are a very collective band from $`7/2_1^{}`$ to $`13/2_1^{}`$ and a different-natured band on $`15/2_1^{}`$. We have a similar structure change at middle spin both in 51Mn and 51Cr, though the turning point is different and the behavior of the spectroscopic quadrupole moment $`Q_{spec}`$ is different in the two nuclei. This may be the same kind of band crossing as that in 50Cr or 48Cr. The backbending is common to even-$`A`$ and odd-$`A`$ nuclei in the middle of $`f_{7/2}`$ shell.

Although we omit the results in 51V and 51Ti, the extended $`P+QQ`$ model with the additional monopole terms well describes these nuclei.

## 6 Concluding remarks

We have shown that the $`P_0+P_2+QQ+V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ interaction proposed in Refs.  is very much improved, if the average monopole field $`V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ is modified by adding small monopole terms. The modified model well reproduces the experimental binding energies, energy levels and $`B(E2)`$ between the yrast states not only in even-$`A`$ nuclei but also odd-$`A`$ nuclei with $`A`$=44-51. The concrete results support the previous discussions developed by Zuker and co-workers: (1) the monopole components of the $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ interaction matrix elements play important roles in nuclear spectroscopy ; (2) the residual part of a realistic effective interaction obtained after extracting the monopole terms is dominated by the $`P_0`$ and $`QQ`$ forces . Our functional interaction has clarified the different roles of the average monopole field $`V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ (which contributes to the large binding energy and to the energy difference between the $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ states in $`N=Z`$ nuclei ) and the additional monopole terms (which affect spectroscopy). The calculations recommend including the $`P_2`$ force in quantitative description.

The present modification of the $`P_0+P_2+QQ+V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ interaction leaves still a tiny room for improvement. For instance, we have seen the somewhat awkward reproduction of the middle-spin levels in the band crossing region in some nuclei such as 51Mn. We have considered only the simplified forms of the $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ diagonal interactions and neglect $`J`$-dependence of them, in this paper. On the other hand, some $`J`$-dependent miner changes in the interaction matrix elements $`f_{7/2}f_{7/2}JT|V|f_{7/2}f_{7/2}JT`$ are added to the monopole terms in the KB3 interaction. If we adopt such miner corrections for $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^\tau (f_{7/2}f_{7/2}J)`$ in Eqs. (4) and (8), we shall possibly get better results. We made the present calculations without changing the scaling of the force strengths, since the results do not demand the change. We have simply neglected the $`A`$-dependence of the additional monopole terms.

The calculations in this paper (and (I)) demonstrate the quality of the $`P_0+P_2+QQ+V_{\pi \nu }^0`$ interaction modified by the additional monopole terms (or without the modification in some cases) to be good enough for practical use to discuss the nuclear structure. Our interaction is flexible in changing the model space (for instance possible extension to the two major-shell space) and is applicable to regions where any reliable effective interaction is not available. Our functional effective interaction is not determined in terms of individual interaction matrix elements but has only a few parameters (8 parameters and single-particle energies in this paper). It is interesting to apply the functional effective interaction to various nuclei including those in the proton-drip line.

The authors are very grateful to Dr. T. Mizusaki for taking interest in our work and giving us a hint to improve our computer code.