text:
# Adhesion between a viscoelastic material and a solid surface

## 1 Introduction

Understanding how the interface between a polymer and another material fails is important for many industrial applications and has therefore been the subject of many studies in the last 30 years . A quantity of central interest is the interface toughness (also called the adhesion energy), $`G`$, which is the energy per unit area needed to make a crack separating the two materials travel along the interface. If the polymer is above its glass transition temperature, this energy is dissipated - as the crack advances - by both local processes (occurring near the crack tip) and viscoelastic losses (taking place over macroscopic volumes) . Some years ago, Gent and Schultz  and Andrews and Kinloch  showed that, for elastomeric adhesives, the variations of the interface toughness, G, with the crack velocity, $`V`$, can be written as:

$$G(V)=G_0(1+\phi (a_TV)),$$
(1)
where $`G_0`$ is the limiting value of the fracture energy at zero rate of crack growth, and represents local processes. According to Eq.(1), the contribution of the bulk viscoelastic losses, $`G_v(V)=G(V)G_0`$, is given by $`G_v(V)=G_0\phi (a_TV)`$ (where the temperature-shift factor $`a_T`$ is given by the Williams-Landel-Ferry equation ) and is therefore itself proportional to the local contribution $`G_0`$. This remarkable fact was explained by de Gennes at the level of scaling laws , and further developed more rigorously by Hui, Xu and Kramer  (for other related studies, see ). In the first part of this paper, we reconsider de Gennes’ model in the case of the interface between a poorly crosslinked elastomer (or a polymer melt) and a solid surface. We show, in particular, that the far-field viscoelastic contributions to the interface toughness play a significant role at separation rates much lower than previously thought. We also reconsider the profile of the crack , confirming some predictions of the earlier approach of Greenwood and Johnson . In the second part of the paper we present experimental results for the adhesion between a polymer melt and a glass surface (for earlier work on ”tack”, see, *e.g.*, refs. ). These results for the fracture energy and the crack profile, which extend earlier work by Ondarçuhu , are then compared with the theoretical predictions of section 2.

## 2 Theoretical approach

### 2.1 Viscoelastic features of the polymer material

Many polymers are characterized by a viscoelastic behavior, exhibiting liquid-like or solid-like responses to mechanical sollicitations, depending on the frequency range of sollicitation. For the sake of simplicity, as in Refs., we assume that the polymer material is characterized by a single relaxation time, $`\tau `$ , and that its rheological behavior can be described by a complex modulus $`\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )=\mu ^{}(\omega )+i\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ (we denote complex quantities with underlined variables), given by:

$$\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )=\mu _0+(\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _0)\frac{i\omega \tau }{1+i\omega \tau }.$$
(2)
This expression 2 can depict both mechanical responses of crosslinked and uncrosslinked polymers, by taking in this last case $`\mu _0=0`$ (*i.e.* in the absence of low-frequency elastic modulus). In the following, we will discuss both cases and will use a fundamental parameter, denoted $`\lambda `$, characterizing the ratio between high and low-frequency elastic moduli. For a poorly cross-linked elastomer, some chains are tied by one end only (some others might even be free): in this case, the low-frequency modulus $`\mu _0`$ (related to the network) is small, while the high-frequency modulus $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ (which contains the effects of the entangled free chains and of the dangling ends) is high. We will thus suppose that this ratio of modulus is high, as it can be typically achieved :

$$\lambda \frac{\mu _{\mathrm{}}}{\mu _0}100.$$
(3)
Comparing the deformation rate with the relaxation time of the material, $`\tau `$, three regimes can be distinguished, as summarized in Fig.1:

(i) At very low $`\omega `$, *i.e.* $`\omega <1/(\lambda \tau )`$, we have $`\underset{¯}{\mu }\mu _0`$. The complex modulus is thus essentially real (*i.e.* $`\mu ^{}\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$): the elastic component dominates, and the material can be considered a soft solid.

(ii) For $`1/(\lambda \tau )<\omega <1/\tau `$, we have:

$$\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )(\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _0)i\omega \tau =i\omega \eta .$$
(4)
In this frequency range, where $`\mu ^{}\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$, the rheology is mainly viscous-type: the material is a liquid with a viscosity $`\eta =(\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _0)\tau \mu _{\mathrm{}}\tau `$.

(iii) At high frequencies, *i.e.* $`\omega >1/\tau `$, we find back a regime where $`\mu ^{}\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$, and thus recover a strong solid with an elastic modulus $`\mu \mu _{\mathrm{}}`$.

During crack propagation, the strain rate imposed to the material is high near the fracture tip, and lowers as the distance $`x`$ to the head increases (far from the tip, the material had more time to relax the stresses). Following Ref., we thus relate the distance $`x`$ to the tip with the frequency $`\omega `$ by a simple scaling law of the form:

$$\omega \frac{2\pi V}{x}.$$
(5)
As a consequence, we can distinguish three spatial regions in the bulk of the moving rubber, corresponding to the three regimes of frequencies defined above. In Fig.2 we present a simple view of the fracture profile when the crack propagates in a crosslinked polymer at speed $`V`$. Note that this graphic representation corresponds to a velocity chosen in the range $`l/\tau <V<L/\lambda \tau `$, where $`L`$ is the crack length .

Directly ahead the crack tip (located at $`x=l`$) is an adhesive zone of length $`l`$ (assumed to be smaller than $`1000\AA `$), where local dissipative processes take place , and lead to the $`G_0`$ term of order 1 to 10 J$``$m-2. In the following, all relevant dimensions of the problem (e.g. the crack length or the specimen dimensions in a fracture test) will be assumed to be sufficiently large compared with the adhesive zone size. For simplicity reasons, we will also suppose this length $`l`$ constant and independent of separation rate $`V`$

Close to the fracture tip, the small spatial scales correspond to high rates of deformation: this region (number 1 in Fig.2 : $`x<V\tau `$) is a strong solid of elastic modulus $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$. At intermediate distances (region 2: $`V\tau <x<\lambda V\tau `$), the behavior is viscous-type: the polymer can be viewed a liquid of viscosity $`\eta `$. Far away the fracture head (region 3: $`x>\lambda V\tau `$), the material is a soft solid of modulus $`\mu _0`$.

### 2.2 Integral expression for the fracture energy

A few years ago , de Gennes proposed a general relation between the energy $`G_v(V)`$ viscously dissipated during crack propagation at separation rate $`V`$, and the real ($`\mu ^{}(\omega )=\text{Re}[\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )]`$) and imaginary ($`\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )=\text{Im}[\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )]`$) parts of the complex modulus $`\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )`$.

#### 2.2.1 Viscous dissipation $`G_v(V)`$ in the polymer bulk

Let us begin with a general calculation of the energy dissipated in a viscoelastic material, within the framework of linear viscoelasticity and using the more convenient complex representation of the oscillatory motion. When the material is submitted to an oscillatory stress at frequency $`\omega `$, characterized by its complex form $`\underset{¯}{\sigma }=\sigma _0\mathrm{exp}i\omega t`$, the material response, given by the complex strain, $`\underset{¯}{\gamma }`$, is of the form:

$$\underset{¯}{\sigma }=\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )\underset{¯}{\gamma }.$$
(6)
The energy dissipated per unit of time, and per unit of volume, is given by $`\sigma \dot{\gamma }`$, where $`\dot{\gamma }`$ denotes the strain-rate. One can show that the time-averaged of this quantity, $`\sigma \dot{\gamma }`$, is simply given by:

$$\sigma \dot{\gamma }=\text{Re}\left[\frac{\underset{¯}{\sigma }\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{\gamma }}^{}}{2}\right].$$
(7)
Here, $`\underset{¯}{\dot{\gamma }^{}}`$ is the complex conjugate of the complex strain-rate $`\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{\gamma }}=i\omega \underset{¯}{\gamma }`$.

Using Eq.(6), we find that the viscous energy dissipated by the system depends on *both* loss ($`\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$) and storage ($`\mu ^{}`$) modulus:

$$\text{Re}\left[\frac{\underset{¯}{\sigma }\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{\gamma }}^{}}{2}\right]=\frac{\sigma _0^2}{2}\frac{\omega \mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )}{\mu ^{}(\omega )^2+\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )^2}.$$
(8)
Let us now turn back to the trumpet model. The viscous dissipation $`T\dot{S}`$ (per unit length of the fracture line) is:

$$T\dot{S}=\sigma \dot{\gamma }\text{d}x\text{d}y=\text{Re}\left[\frac{\underset{¯}{\sigma }\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{\gamma }}^{}}{2}\right]\text{d}x\text{d}y.$$
(9)
In our model, we assume that the stress amplitude is given by $`\sigma _0=K_I/\sqrt{r}`$ (cf. part 2.3 for precisions). We can also relate the distance to crack tip $`r`$ to local frequencies of excitation $`\omega `$ by the scaling relation (5): $`\omega (r)=V/r`$. The integrand inside the right-hand side of Eq.(9) thus depends only on $`r`$, and we can replace the integral over $`x`$ and $`y`$ (on the half-space $`y0`$) by an integral over $`r`$ (from $`r=l`$ to $`rL`$), omitting numerical coefficient due to the integration over $`\theta `$ (from 0 to $`\pi `$):

$$T\dot{S}\sigma _0^2\frac{\omega \mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )}{\mu ^{}(\omega )^2+\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )^2}|_{\omega =V/r}r\text{d}r.$$
(10)
Using relation (5), we turn the Eq.(10) into an integral over frequencies of solicitation:

$$T\dot{S}K_I^2V\frac{\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )}{\mu ^{}(\omega )^2+\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )^2}\frac{\text{d}\omega }{\omega }.$$
(11)
The viscous dissipation $`T\dot{S}`$ and $`G_v`$ are simply related by $`T\dot{S}=VG_v`$. Finally, as the fracture energy at zero velocity $`G_0`$ and the applied stress intensity factor $`K_I`$ are related by the classical expression $`G_0=K_I^2/\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$, we end up with :

$$\frac{G_v(V)}{G_0}\mu _{\mathrm{}}_{\omega _{min}}^{\omega _{max}}\frac{\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )}{\mu ^{}(\omega )^2+\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )^2}\frac{\text{d}\omega }{\omega }.$$
(12)
$`G_0`$ is the adhesion energy due to local processes near the tip. The limiting values $`\omega _{min}=V/L`$ and $`\omega _{max}=V/l`$ define the range of frequency over which the material is excited.

The analytical results derived from Eq.(12) are presented in the appendix. Using the form (2) of the complex modulus of the material, the evolution of the total adhesion energy $`G=G_0+G_v`$ versus crack velocity can be predicted for both cases of crosslinked and uncrosslinked ($`\mu _0=0`$) polymers. For the sake of conciseness, we will only qualitatively discuss the contribution of the different zones for $`G_v`$, which contrasts with some predictions of the classical picture of viscoelastic trumpet.

#### 2.2.2 Contribution of the different zones for the adhesion energy

It was pointed out in a preceding paper  that the dissipation in the liquid zone predominates for the overall dissipation (because the liquid region is huge, ranging from $`V\tau `$ to $`\lambda V\tau `$). This gives rise to amplification of the adhesion energy by a factor $`\lambda `$ ($`G=\lambda G_0`$) when the separation rate is taken between $`l/\tau `$ and $`L/\lambda \tau `$. This domain of velocities corresponds to a fully developed liquid zone, which explains the maximum of fracture energy (as the other ”elastic” zones do not dissipate energy in this simple view).

In fact, it is worth noting that this enhancement begins for much lower separation rates. In order to get a better understanding for the origin of this property, let us now calculate the viscous dissipation in the various regions of the bulk polymer, by estimating in each zone the value of the complex modulus: $`\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )=\mu ^{}(\omega )+i\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ (the different approximations are mentioned in Fig. 1). The crucial point here is that the integration of a weak loss modulus $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$ as in Eq.(12) over a huge volume can give rise to an energy enhancement comparable to the viscous region one. In Fig. 3, we present a simplified graphic representation of the regimes.

At low separation rates, $`V<l/(\lambda \tau )`$, the whole polymer material behaves as a ”soft solid”; replacing $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ by their approximated expressions in Eq.(12), we obtain:

$$\frac{G_v(V)}{G_0}\frac{\lambda ^2V\tau }{l}\text{for}V<\frac{l}{\lambda \tau }.$$
(13)
Thus, the (weak) loss modulus of the elastic region is sufficient to increase the fracture energy. The fracture energy reaches $`G\lambda G_0`$ for a fracture speed as low as $`V=l/(\lambda \tau )`$, even if the ”liquid zone” has not emerged yet.

For intermediate separation rates \[$`l/(\lambda \tau )<V<L/(\lambda \tau )`$\], the ”soft solid” region gives a dissipation of the same order as the liquid zone:

$$\frac{G_v(V)}{G_0}\lambda \text{for}\frac{l}{\lambda \tau }<V<\frac{L}{\lambda \tau }.$$
(14)
Finally, at high separation rates \[for $`V>L/(\lambda \tau )`$\], $`G(V)`$ is a decreasing function:

$$\frac{G_v(V)}{G_0}\frac{L}{V\tau }\text{for}V>\frac{L}{\lambda \tau }.$$
(15)
For uncrosslinked polymers, the rheological behavior is viscous at low frequencies: $`\mu _0=0`$ and the complex modulus can be written as:

$$\mu (\omega )=\mu _{\mathrm{}}\frac{i\omega \tau }{1+i\omega \tau }.$$
(16)
Equation (23) thus gives:

$$\frac{G_v(V)}{G_0}\frac{L}{V\tau }.$$
(17)
As expected, we recover the expression (15) for a crosslinked polymer at velocities $`V`$ larger than $`L/\lambda \tau `$, i.e. when the soft solid region has disappeared because of the finite dimensions of the sample.

The adhesion energy expression (17) is compared with experiments in part 3.2.

### 2.3 The trumpet profile

If we assume the relation (5) between the distance to fracture tip and the frequency imponed to the material, we can relate the rheological properties of the material and the corresponding profile $`u(x)`$ in each region. In a linear approach of stress strain relations in the viscoelastic medium , the stress $`\sigma (t)`$ and strain $`\gamma (t)`$ are related by the relaxation modulus $`G(t)`$:

$$\sigma (t)=_{\mathrm{}}^tG(t\tau )\frac{\text{d}\gamma (\tau )}{\text{d}\tau }\text{d}\tau .$$
(18)
If the strain history is specified as being a harmonic function of time according to $`\underset{¯}{\gamma }(t)=\gamma _0\mathrm{exp}i\omega t`$ (with an amplitude $`\gamma _0`$), we can write:

$$\underset{¯}{\sigma }(t)=\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )\gamma _0\mathrm{exp}^{i\omega t}=|\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )|\gamma _0\mathrm{exp}^{i(\omega t+\mathrm{tan}^1[\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )/\mu ^{}(\omega )])},$$
(19)
where $`|\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )|`$ is the magnitude of the complex modulus $`\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )`$. Taking the modulus of both sides of Eq.(19), we get:

$$|\underset{¯}{\sigma }(t)|=|\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )||\gamma _0|.$$
(20)
For a steadily growing mode I interface plane stress (or plane strain) crack under small scale yielding conditions, all field quantities are time independent with respect to an observer attached to the tip of the cohesive zone. Defining a polar coordinate system $`(r,\theta )`$ (cf. Fig. 2), we know  that the amplitude of stress inside an elastic material is given by:

$$\sigma _{ij}(r,\theta )=\frac{K_I}{\sqrt{2\pi r}}g_{ij}(\theta ),$$
(21)
where $`K_I`$ is the applied stress intensity factor  and $`g_{ij}(\theta )`$ are universal functions describing the angular variation of the crack tip stress field. In particular, the normal stress vanishes on the tip, but the other stress components follow the following scaling law with respect to the distance $`x`$ to the crack tip:

$$\sigma (x)=\frac{K_I}{\sqrt{x}}.$$
(22)
Although we are dealing here with a complex viscoelastic medium, this simple scaling form (Eq.22) remains valid for our problem, as the equations of motion reduce in both cases to $`\sigma =0`$, with identical compatibility conditions imposed to the stress components . The strain imposed to a fluid element of length $`\text{d}x`$ is simply given by $`\gamma =\text{d}u/\text{d}x`$. Relating $`x`$ to $`\omega `$ by the scaling expression (5), we finally obtain:

$$\left|\mu \left(\omega =2\pi \frac{V}{x}\right)\right|\frac{\text{d}u}{\text{d}x}=\frac{K_I}{\sqrt{x}}.$$
(23)
In each solid or liquid zone, we know from Eqs.(33) the expression of $`|\mu |=\sqrt{\mu ^{}_{}{}^{}2+\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }2}}`$, and can derive from Eq.(23) the expected profile $`u(x)`$ .

In the soft solid region, where the frequencies are low ($`\omega <1/(\lambda \tau )`$), we recover an elastic modulus: $`|\mu |=\mu _0\sqrt{1+(\lambda \omega \tau )^2}\mu _0`$. Equation (23) can be rewritten as: $`\mu _0\text{d}u=\sigma (x)\text{d}x`$, which simply traduces the linearity of displacement $`\text{d}u`$ when a force $`\sigma (x)\text{d}x`$ is exerted on the element $`\text{d}x`$: the behavior is elastic, and we obtain from Eq.(23) the expected profile in region 1:

$$u_{\text{soft solid}}x^{1/2}.$$
(24)
In the liquid region, in the same manner, we recover an viscous-type rheology, as $`|\mu |=\mu _{\mathrm{}}\omega \tau \sqrt{1+(\omega \tau )^2}\mu _{\mathrm{}}\omega \tau `$. Eq.(23) can be rewritten as: $`\sigma =\eta \dot{\gamma }`$, which is simply the stress constitutive relation for a Newtonian viscous fluid. Knowing that $`|\mu |1/x`$ in this zone, Eq.(23) gives the expected profile in region 2:

$$u_{\text{liquid}}x^{3/2}.$$
(25)
The conclusions for the strong solid region are identical to the soft one. We predict:

$$u_{\text{strong solid}}x^{1/2}.$$
(26)
Greenwood and Johnson  investigated the precise shape of the free surfaces of a crack, by using Barenblatt’s approach . Their conclusions agree with our qualitative picture of viscoelastic fracture: at very low speed, the crack has an elastic shape $`ux^{1/2}`$ (*i.e.* the liquid zone has not emerged yet); at high speed, the profile is again purely elastic (*i.e.* the bulk of the material is only a strong solid zone); finally, at intermediate speeds, the three zones are present, including a central $`ux^{3/2}`$ profile, whose extension depends on the form of the compliance function for the material.

These different velocity regimes are indeed experimentally observed (cf. Fig. 7), as developed below. Of course, the purely elastic shape at low velocity is not observed, as there is no elastic modulus at low strain-rates for an uncrosslinked polymer.

## 3 Experimental results

### 3.1 Experimental setup

In the experimental study, we chose to use an uncrosslinked polymer instead of a poorly crosslinked elastomer. The advantage is that such a liquid adhesive gives large enough deformations to be evidenced by simple optics set-up. Even if all the regimes discussed in the previous part will not be present in the experiments, the influence of viscous flow during failure was investigated in detail with in particular, the study of fracture profiles. This last point also required the use of thick adhesive layers in order to avoid additional cut-off length related to the thickness. The results presented below correspond to an adhesive thickness of 10 mm, larger than the diameter of the probe-adhesive contact area (about 6 mm). The adhesive we used is an uncrosslinked polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) polymer (Rhodia, France) with a large molecular weight (Mw = 497000, Mw/Mn = 1,9). It exhibits model rheological properties and has a large characteristic time ($`\tau =`$ 0.6 s) well suited to video recording rate.

The experimental procedure is detailed in  : we built a probe tack test experiment and adapted an optical set-up in order to visualize and measure the fracture profiles during the debonding process. This allowed to correlate the energy and stress measurements with the fracture propagation mechanism. An important point of our set-up is that we used a spherical probe (a glass watch). This was necessary to overcome the spurious problems of parallelism met with a flat probe. With the spherical one, the fracture always propagated symmetrically. This was nearly never the case with a flat probe. Note that a very small curvature is sufficient to guide the fracture radially : we used probes with a radius of curvature (about 10 cm) much larger than the observed deformations (about 1 mm) and than the radius of the probe-adhesive contact area (about 3 mm). As the characteristic angle of aperture of the probe (of order $`3/100`$) is very small compared with the opening angle of fracture (of order $`1/3`$), we therefore assumed that it did not modify the fracture mechanism compared with a flat probe. This spherical geometry is also very convenient to lighten and get sharp images. Another feature to note is that the velocity of the fracture measured on the video was constant during the propagation. The propagation speed increased only at the very end of the debonding. This is an important point in order to compare the results to the models developed at constant velocity. For every experiment we monitored the force F(t) during the debonding and deduced by numerical integration of this curve the adhesion energy per unit surface G. We also videotaped the fracture propagation. We measured the fracture profile $`u(x)`$ as the distance between the polymer surface and the probe.

### 3.2 Adhesion energy $`G`$ versus crack velocity

In the following we will consider only the case of adhesive failure when the bond breaks at the polymer-probe interface. At smaller separation velocities, the failure was cohesive as discussed in . In Fig.4 we reported the adhesion energy of the bond as a function of the velocity $`V`$ of propagation of the fracture. Note that the velocity $`V`$ is different from the velocity at which the probe is withdrawn. Two regimes are clearly evidenced:

i) at large velocities, the energy $`G`$ did not depend on the separation rate and tends towards a constant value. The fracture propagating at the adhesive-probe interface was very rapid so that the polymer has no time to flow: it has an elastic behavior. In this case the constant energy value is governed by processes occurring close to the fracture tip.

ii) for smaller velocities the failure was still interfacial but the energies measured are larger. As shown in  this energy enhancement is caused by viscous losses in the bulk of the polymer far from the fracture tip. The fracture is slow enough to let the polymer flow.

We compared the energy measurements reported in Fig.4 with the model described above. From Eq.(17) we deduced the expression of the fracture energy :

$$G=G_0\left(1+\frac{L}{V\tau }\right).$$
(27)
As shown in Fig.4 this expression describes very well the energy measurements. The energy enhancement appeared for fracture velocities lower of 5 mm$``$s-1 which is in very good agreement with the expected value $`V=L/\tau `$. In our experiment $`L`$ 3 mm, $`\tau `$ 0.6 s which gives $`V`$ 5 mm$``$s-1. Using these values we deduced from the fit the value of $`G_0=`$ 5.5 J$``$m-2.

### 3.3 Fracture profiles

The fracture profiles measured in the moving frame during an experiment at V = 2 mm$``$s-1 corresponding to the viscoelastic regime are represented in Fig.5 . At the beginning of the propagation the profile was parabolic $`ux^{1/2}`$ as evidenced in the logarithmic representation (Fig.6). As the propagation proceeded we noted an important modification of the profile : close to the fracture tip the profile is still parabolic but we observe a change in the concavity of the profile far from the fracture tip. For $`x`$ larger than about 1 mm the profile is described by a power law larger than 1/2. This distance is in good agreement with the $`LV\tau =`$ 1.2 mm distance expected in the theoretical part as the transition between solid and liquid zones. All these profiles coming from a single experiment corresponds qualitatively to the trumpet profile discussed in detail above.

It was then interesting to compare profiles of experiments coming from the two distinct regimes : elastic and viscoelastic. In Fig.7, we superposed two profiles obtained at about 2/3 of the fracture propagation for an experiment in the elastic regime ($`V=`$ 14.5 mm$``$s-1, $`G=1.3G_0`$) and an experiment in the viscoelastic regime ($`V=`$ 3.9 mm$``$s-1, $`G=2.2G_0`$). This latter profile is similar to the ones reported in Fig.5 except that the transition from elastic to viscous profile occurs for a larger distance $`x2`$ mm which is still in good agreement with the $`LV\tau =`$ 2.3 mm value. As for the profile in the elastic regime, the profiles are identical close to the fracture tip but differ in the far field region. In the elastic case the fracture propagation is so rapid that the polymer remains elastic. The value of $`LV\tau =`$ 8.7 mm is larger than the contact size. During all the propagation the fracture profile is described by the parabolic profile $`ux^{1/2}`$ (see Fig.8). The difference between the two curves of Fig.7 materializes the viscous flow which is responsible for the energy enhancement obtained in the viscoelastic regime.

All these results verify qualitatively the picture of the trumpet profile schematized in Fig.2 (except for the soft solid zone which is not present with a liquid polymer). However, the range of distances available experimentally was not sufficient to clearly observe the $`ux^{3/2}`$ characteristic of the liquid zone. We only observed a transition regime that can be large because, in such systems, the transition between solid and liquid behavior extends over several orders of magnitude of solicitation rate.

In order to make more quantitative comparison we tried to fit the fracture profiles with Eq.(23) which gives a direct relation between the fracture profile $`u(x)`$ and the rheological property $`|\mu (\omega )|`$ of the adhesive. The rheological data $`\mu ^{}(\omega )`$ and $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ were measured using a Rheometrix RDA2 machine. For each point of the profile, we calculated the corresponding pulsation $`\omega =2\pi V/x`$ where $`V`$ is the fracture velocity and determined the corresponding modulus $`|\mu (\omega )|`$. The profiles $`u(x)`$ were determined as explained above. We tested two methods to derivate the profiles: a numerical derivation or a fit by a polynomial function followed by an analytical derivation. These two methods gave the same results within a 10% uncertainty. We preferred the numerical method because the polynomial fit was not perfect close to the fracture tip.

In Fig.9 we reported, for every profile of Figs.5 and 7 the value of $`|\mu (\omega )|du/dx`$ as a function of $`x`$. We observe that the curves corresponding to the different profiles fit on a same curve. The parabolic profiles of Fig.5 observed at the beginning of the propagation as well as the ”trumpet” profiles that develop after a given time give the same power law in this representation. It is also the case for the profiles of Fig.7 coming from different types of fracture propagation. In fact, Eq.(23) holds for all conditions of solicitation. The stress intensity factor $`K_I`$ characterizes the strength of the bond and is directly related to $`G_0`$ by:

$$G_0=\frac{K_I^2}{\mu _{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(28)
Both parameters $`G_0`$ and $`K_I`$ describe processes occurring at the fracture tip and therefore depend only on the preparation of the bond. All the experiments of Fig.4 thus correspond to a same value of $`K_I`$. The far field losses induced an enhancement of the energy in the viscoelastic regime but did not modify the stress distribution in the adhesive. For that reason, the profiles of Figs.5-8, in the elastic as well as in the viscoelastic regimes, coincide in the representation $`|\mu (\omega )|du/dx`$ versus $`x`$. The power law deduced from Fig.9 is $`|\mu (\omega )|du/dxx^{0.56}`$ in rather good agreement with the $`x^{1/2}`$ expected from Eq.(23). The deduced value of the stress intensity factor is $`K_I=`$ 18000 N$``$m-3/2. The value $`G_0=`$ 3 J$``$m-2 deduced from the profiles according to Eq.(28) is of the order of the value $`G_0=`$ 5.5 J$``$m-2 deduced from adhesion energy measurements.

All these experimental results validate the picture of the trumpet profile and its influence on the adhesion energy of a viscoelastic polymer.

## 4 Conclusion and perspectives

In conclusion, we proposed a qualitative description of the dissipative processes occurring during the failure of the interface between a viscoelastic material and a solid substrate, mainly based on de Gennes’ initial approach . In particular, we analyzed the enhancement of fracture energy due to far-field viscous dissipation in the bulk material. The results of our scaling analysis are in accordance with the more rigorous ones of Hui *et al.*  and Greenwood *et al.* .

We have shown that, for a crosslinked elastomer, the interface toughness $`G(V)`$ starts from a relatively low value $`G_0`$ due to local dissipative processes near the crack tip, and reaches a maximum of order $`G_0(\mu _{\mathrm{}}/\mu _0)`$ (see eq.2). It was shown that our simple model accounts well for the dependence of fracture energy $`G(V)`$ for a polymer melt, for which the fracture energy should scale as $`1/V`$. The two velocity regimes, and the peculiar crack profiles experimentally observed validate our description in two zones: an elastic region near the crack tip, and a liquid zone with a different concavity at distances larger than $`V\tau `$ (where the material had enough time to flow).

The ”viscoelastic trumpet” model  is thus a simple, tractable, linear model which describes well, on the basis of viscoelasticity, the viscous origin of fracture energy enhancement observed in many systems. Our aim here is to point out that the fracture energy originating from viscous dissipation in the bulk polymer had been underestimated at low velocities. Some experiments measuring the quantity $`G_0`$ for elastomers, by taking a crack velocity as small as practically possible, which obtain too large values for $`G_0`$, may thus be reassessed by taking into account the viscous dissipation existing in large volumes of soft elastic regions.

To conclude, let us insist on the fact that this ”viscoelastic trumpet” model is a qualitative approach of a very complex phenomenon, and lies on many approximations: in particular, the independence versus $`V`$ of the adhesive zone scale $`l`$, and of the associated dissipation term $`G_0`$, is obviously discutable as it has been proved that for many systems $`G_0`$ exhibits a marked dependence on $`V`$, and most of the rate dependence of $`G(V)`$ then originates from the rate dependence of $`G_0`$ itself . We can thus expect our model to apply to systems characterized by a relatively weak adhesion, for which $`G_0`$ (and subsequently $`l`$) is effectively quasi-independent on $`V`$: this is the case of the very high molecular weight PDMS studied in the experimental section (at short times, or high separation rates, this type of material behaves elastically and does not dissipate much near the crack tip, as a consequence of its very low glass transition temperature). Most of other uncrosslinked systems are characterized by an increasing dissipation with increasing velocity, even in the elastic regime , because the increase in $`G_0`$ dominates when the adhesion hysteresis is large and the material is soft, even when the polymer is macroscopically elastic . A more realistic description of the microscopic processes taking place in the adhesive zone, including nonlinear effects and specific properties like crack blunting  for very soft materials (characterized by a weak elastic modulus $`E0.1`$ MPa), represents a theoretical challenge, and a possible further extension of our simplistic model.

## 5 Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to P.-G. de Gennes, C. Creton for stimulating and helpful discussions. We also thank L. Léger, K. Okumura, M. Portigliatti and C. Poulard for useful comments.

## Appendix A Analytical results for crosslinked and uncrosslinked polymers

This appendix provides the main analytical results about the fracture energy derived from the integral expression (12) of $`G(V)`$. We will discuss both cases of crosslinked and uncrosslinked polymers, whose corresponding mechanical models are represented in Fig.10.

### A.1 Rheological characteristics

To begin with, let us find back the expressions (2) and (16) of the complex modulus for both cases. Following the notations $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$ and $`\eta `$ introduced in Fig.10, it can easily be shown that the applied stress $`\sigma `$ and the strain $`\gamma `$ are related by the following differential equation:

$$\sigma +\frac{\eta _0}{E_1}\dot{\sigma }=E_2\epsilon +\eta _0\frac{E_1+E_2}{E_1}\dot{\epsilon }$$
(29)
The prefactor $`\eta _0/E_1`$ is a characteristic time of the material, denoted $`\tau =\eta _0/E_1`$.

$$\underset{¯}{\sigma }=\left(E_2+E_1\frac{i\omega \tau }{1+i\omega \tau }\right)\underset{¯}{\gamma }$$
(30)
Defining the two parameters $`\mu _0`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ as $`E_1\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _0`$ and $`E_2\mu _0`$, we thus obtain the expression (2) of the complex modulus:

$$\underset{¯}{\mu }(\omega )=\mu _0+(\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _0)\frac{i\omega \tau }{1+i\omega \tau }.$$
(31)
In the same way, the rheological behavior of an uncrosslinked polymer, whose corresponding mechanical model is represented in Fig.10, can be described by the following complex modulus:

$$\mu (\omega )=\mu _{\mathrm{}}\frac{i\omega \tau }{1+i\omega \tau }.$$
(32)
### A.2 Fracture energy $`G(V)`$ derived from the integral expression Eq.12

#### A.2.1 Analytical results for an elastomer

It is straightforward to see that for the rheological law (2), one has:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mu ^{}(\omega )=\mu _0+(\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _0)\frac{\omega ^2\tau ^2}{1+\omega ^2\tau ^2},\hfill & \\ \mu ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )=(\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _0)\frac{\omega \tau }{1+\omega ^2\tau ^2}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(33)
According to Eq.12, this leads to:

$$\frac{G_v(V)}{G_0}\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{}}(\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _0)}{\mu _0^2}\tau _{V/L}^{V/l}\frac{\text{d}\omega }{1+\lambda ^2\omega ^2\tau ^2},$$
(34)
that is:

$$\frac{G_v(V)}{G_0}(\lambda 1)\left[\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\lambda V\tau }{l}\right)\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\lambda V\tau }{L}\right)\right].$$
(35)
As pointed out before, the viscoelastic effect gives a multiplicative enhancement of the energy $`G_0`$ dissipated by local processes in the adhesive zone. The multiplicative factor, of order $`\lambda =\mu _{\mathrm{}}/\mu _0`$, depends on the degree of cross-linking: a higher crosslinkage induces an increase in $`\mu _0`$ and therefore a decrease in energy of adhesion, as shown by Gent and Petrich . We have already mentioned that a large ratio $`\lambda `$ can be experimentally achieved, to give rise to a good viscous amplification of the adhesion energy.

In Fig.11 we present a logarithmic representation of the fracture energy versus the dimensionless separation rate $`\lambda V\tau /l`$. The fracture toughness $`G(V)`$ exhibits a maximum for a separation rate $`V^{}`$ given by:

$$V^{}=\frac{\sqrt{lL}}{\lambda \tau }.$$
(36)
The adhesion energy is maximal for $`V=V^{}`$, where it takes the value:

$$G_{max}=G_0\left(1+(\lambda 1)\left[\mathrm{arctan}\left(\sqrt{\frac{L}{l}}\right)\mathrm{arctan}\left(\sqrt{\frac{l}{L}}\right)\right]\right).$$
(37)
#### A.2.2 Analytical results for a polymer melt

For uncrosslinked polymers, characterized by the complex modulus (16), equation (23) gives:

$$\frac{G_v(V)}{G_0}\frac{Ll}{V\tau }.$$
(38)
Provided that the length $`l`$ of the adhesion zone remains small compared with the whole sample dimension $`L`$, we recover the expression 15 for a crosslinked polymer at velocities $`V`$ larger than $`L/\lambda \tau `$, i.e. when the soft solid region has disappeared because of the finite dimensions of the sample :

$$\frac{G_v(V)}{G_0}\frac{L}{V\tau }.$$
(39)
The adhesion energy expression (17) is compared with experiments in part 3.2.


format: text

text:
# Model-independent constraints on contact interactions from LEP2 data analysis

## 1 Introduction

Many Standard Model extensions envisage a dynamics acting at one (or more) large mass scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M_W`$, such that the relevant states exchanged among quarks and leptons, having a mass proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, are so heavy that they could not be directly produced at accelerator energies. The most familiar case is represented by quark and lepton composite models , but there are numerous other examples. However, such new interactions could manifest themselves by indirect, virtual, effects represented by deviations of the measured observables from the Standard Model (SM) predictions. If some deviations were effectively observed experimentally to a given significance level, one could try to derive from the data numerical information on the parameters (masses and coupling constants) of the non-standard models and, eventually, to select the viable one. In the case where, instead, no deviation from the SM predictions were observed within the experimental accuracy, one can set numerical bounds and/or constraints on the parameters characterizing the new interactions and, in particular, on the relevant mass scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This information should also be of phenomenological interest, in the exploration of non-standard interactions.

In the spirit of “effective” theories, exchanges of very heavy objects in reactions of quarks and leptons can be parameterized by a contact interaction, representing the “low energy” expansion of the transition amplitude to leading order in the small ratio $`\sqrt{s}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\sqrt{s}`$ being the c.m. energy). The explicit form of such contact interaction Lagrangian (CI) depends on the particles participating in the reaction under consideration. Specifically, we consider here the electron-positron annihilation:

$$e^++e^{}f+\overline{f},$$
(1)
with $`f=\mu `$ and $`\tau `$, and the relevant precision data at LEP2 for $`130<\sqrt{s}<207`$ GeV, published in Ref. , where the results of the four experimental collaborations are combined. Such high precision data can be regarded as a powerful tool to severely test manifestations of non-standard interactions through deviations from the SM predictions. In particular, we are interested in deriving, from those data, constraints on the e e f f contact-interaction Lagrangian :

$$=\underset{\alpha \beta }{}g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\left(\overline{e}_\alpha \gamma _\mu e_\alpha \right)\left(\overline{f}_\beta \gamma ^\mu f_\beta \right),$$
(2)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}`$ denote left- or right-handed fermion helicities, and the parameters $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$ specify the chiral structure of individual interactions and determine the size of the deviations from the SM predictions. One can introduce the previously mentioned large mass scales by $`|ϵ_{\alpha \beta }|=1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }^2`$, and coventionally fixing $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2/4\pi =1`$ as a reminder that, as a compositeness remnant force, this interaction would become strong at $`\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$. However, as remarked above, more generally the scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$ define a standard to compare the sensitivity of measurements to the various kinds of new interactions, see, e.g., .

In practice, the situation is complicated by the fact that, for a given fermion flavor $`f`$, Eq. (2) defines four individual and independent models (basically, the combinations of the four chiralities $`\alpha ,\beta `$ through the $`ϵ`$’s) and, in principle, the general contact interaction could be any linear combination of these models. Thus, the aforementioned deviations of the cross section from the SM predictions may simultaneously depend on all four-fermion effective couplings and, if only one value of the c.m. energy were available, the straightforward comparison of deviations and experimental uncertainty could produce only numerical correlations among the the different CI couplings, rather than separate, and restricted, allowed regions for these parameters in the parameter space around the SM limit $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }=0`$. Moreover, negative interference of CI and SM amplitudes in the cross section might considerably weaken the bounds.

The simplest and commonly adopted procedure consists in assuming non-zero values for just one of the $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$ at a time, and in constraining it to a finite interval by essentially a $`\chi ^2`$ fit analysis of the measured cross sections and forward-backward asymmetries, while all the other parameters are set equal to zero \[??\]. In this way, only tests of specific models can be performed.

On the other hand, it would be desirable to perform a more general kind of analysis of the data, that simultaneously includes all terms of Eq. (2) as free, potentially non-vanishing independent parameters and, at the same time, allows to disentangle their contributions to the basic observables in order to derive separate constraints within finite regions around the SM limit.

In cases where only one value for the c.m. energy is available, such as for the planned $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider , a solution is represented by the initial electron beam’s longitudinal polarization, that would enable to experimentally extract the individual helicity amplitudes of process (1), by definition directly related to the individual e e f f contact couplings $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$ .

Such a procedure cannot be applied to the data from LEP, with unpolarized electron and positron beams. However, in this case, the cross sections of processes (1) are measured at LEP2 over a range of $`\sqrt{s}`$ values wide enough that the energy dependence of the deviations, entirely determined by well-known SM parameters, can be exploited to restrict the bounds to limited regions in the CI parameter space, and in this way to perform an analysis of the new interaction, model-independent in the sense indicated above. This observation was used for a global analysis of data at the energies of LEP1, LEP2 and TRISTAN in Ref. . The analysis presented here uses exclusively the most recent higher statistics LEP2 data, combines the two channels $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and the results of the four experiments, and accounts for, among other things, the correlations among the measurements at the different energy points. The basic observables will be the “conventional” ones, namely, the integrated cross section $`\sigma (s)`$ and the forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}(s)`$, whose experimental values are tabulated in Ref. .

Specifically, in Sec. 2 we will give the basic definition of helicity amplitudes and the formulae relevant to $`\sigma `$ and $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ for the processes of interest here, and in Sec. 3 we shall present the model-independent analysis of LEP2 data and the resulting constraints on CI couplings. Finally, Sec. 4 will be devoted to some concluding remarks and an application of the method to a model example.

## 2 Cross section and helicity amplitudes

Limiting ourselves to the cases $`f=\mu ,\tau `$ and neglecting all fermion masses with respect to $`\sqrt{s}`$, and taking into account the Born $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchanges in the $`s`$ channel plus the contact-interaction term (2), the differential cross section of process (1) reads :

$$\frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{3}{8}\left[(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2\sigma _++(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2\sigma _{}\right],$$
(3)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the incoming electron and the outgoing fermion in the c.m. frame. In terms of helicity cross sections, $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ with $`\alpha ,\beta =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}`$:

$`\sigma _+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}\right),`$ (4)
$`\sigma _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}\right).`$ (5)
In Eqs. (4) and (5):

$$\sigma _{\alpha \beta }=\sigma _{\mathrm{pt}}|_{\alpha \beta }|^2,$$
(6)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pt}}\sigma (e^+e^{}\gamma ^{}l^+l^{})=4\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}^2/3s`$ (for quark-antiquark production a color factor $`N_C3(1+\alpha _s/\pi )`$ would be needed). The helicity amplitudes $`_{\alpha \beta }`$ can be written as

$$_{\alpha \beta }=Q_eQ_f+g_\alpha ^eg_\beta ^f\chi _Z+\frac{s}{\alpha _{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta },$$
(7)
where: $`\chi _Z=s/(sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z)`$ is the $`Z`$ propagator; $`g_\mathrm{L}^f=(I_{3L}^fQ_fs_W^2)/s_Wc_W`$ and $`g_\mathrm{R}^f=Q_fs_W^2/s_Wc_W`$ are the SM left- and right-handed fermion couplings of the $`Z`$ with $`s_W^2=1c_W^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$; $`Q_e=Q_f=1`$ are the fermion electric charges.

The measured observables $`\sigma `$ and $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ are given by the relations:

$$\sigma =_1^1\frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta }\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{1}{4}\left[\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}\right)+\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}\right)\right];$$
(8)
and

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{FB}}\sigma A_{\mathrm{FB}}=\left(_0^1_1^0\right)\frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta }\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{3}{16}\left[\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}\right)\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}\right)\right].$$
(9)
Finally, their relation to $`\sigma _\pm `$ is given by

$$\sigma _\pm =\frac{\sigma }{2}\left(1\pm \frac{4}{3}A_{\mathrm{FB}}\right).$$
(10)
Taking Eq. (7) into account, Eqs. (8) and (9) show that $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{FB}}`$ (or $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$) simultaneously depend on all four contact interaction couplings, and therefore by themselves do not allow a model-independent analysis, but only the simplified one-parameter fit of individual models. However, $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{FB}}`$ depend on the two combinations of helicity cross sections, $`\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}\right)`$ and $`\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}\right)`$. Accordingly, a combined analysis of $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{FB}}`$ enables to separately constrain the pairs of parameters $`(ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}},ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}})`$ and $`(ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}},ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}})`$. Moreover, the combination of experimental data on $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{FB}}`$ at different values of the c.m. energy allows to further restrict such separate bounds in a model-independent way.

To clarify this statement and intuitively show by a simplified example the role of the different energy points in improving the constraints, assuming that no deviation from the SM is observed within the experimental accuracies, constraints on the contact interaction couplings $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$ can be derived from the system of two inequalities:

$$|\sigma ^{\mathrm{SM}+\mathrm{CI}}\sigma ^{\mathrm{SM}}|<\delta \sigma ,$$
(11)
$$|A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{\mathrm{SM}+\mathrm{CI}}A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{\mathrm{SM}}|<\delta A_{\mathrm{FB}},$$
(12)
where $`\delta \sigma `$ and $`\delta A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ represent the experimental uncertainties on these observables. Taking Eqs. (4) and (5) into account, the deviations from the SM predictions in the left-hand sides of Eqs. (11) and (12) can be written as:

$$\sigma ^{\mathrm{SM}+\mathrm{CI}}\sigma ^{\mathrm{SM}}=\frac{1}{4}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}\right)+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}\right)\right],$$
(13)
$$A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{\mathrm{SM}+\mathrm{CI}}A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{\mathrm{SM}}=\frac{3}{16\sigma ^{\mathrm{SM}}}\left[\left(1\frac{4}{3}A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{\mathrm{SM}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}\right)\left(1+\frac{4}{3}A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{\mathrm{SM}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}\right)\right],$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }=\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{SM}+\mathrm{CI}}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{SM}}`$.

From Eqs. (11)–(14) one can obtain constraints on the $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$. Specifically, the areas allowed to the values of the parameters are enclosed by concentric circles in the planes $`(ϵ_{LL},ϵ_{RR})`$ and $`(ϵ_{LR},ϵ_{RL})`$. For example, the domain allowed to the pair $`(ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}},ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}})`$ is delimited by the circular contours:

$$\left(ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}+\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}}{s}_{\mathrm{LL}}^{\mathrm{SM}}\right)^2+\left(ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}+\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}}{s}_{\mathrm{RR}}^{\mathrm{SM}}\right)^2=R_\pm ^2,$$
(15)
where

$$R_\pm ^2=\left(\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}}{s}_{\mathrm{LL}}^{\mathrm{SM}}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}}{s}_{\mathrm{RR}}^{\mathrm{SM}}\right)^2\pm \kappa ^2,$$
(16)
and

$$\kappa ^2=\left(\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}}{s}\right)^2\frac{4}{\sigma _{\mathrm{pt}}}\delta \sigma _+.$$
(17)
In the right-hand side of Eq. (17), $`\delta \sigma _+`$ must be expressed in terms of the experimental uncertainties $`\delta \sigma `$ and $`\delta A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$,111While $`\sigma _+`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$, as shown in Eqs. (4) and (5), are the most natural observables, we use instead $`\sigma `$ and $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ for our analysis, since the data are tabulated (with errors) for these observables. and a color factor $`1/N_C`$ is needed in the case of quark-antiquark production. These relations show that both the centre and the radii of the circles $`R_\pm `$ are determined by the values of the SM helicity amplitudes and depend on energy, while the width of the allowed area is determined by the experimental uncertainty of the observables. Therefore, in principle, the combination of two (or more) such allowed regions corresponding to different energies can lead to a reduction of the allowed region and, ultimately, to model-independent bounds on the contact interaction coupling constants.

It should be stressed that, while the observables are given by two sums of helicity cross sections, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}`$, it does not follow that one can only obtain constraints on the corresponding sums of parameters, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}+ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}+ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}`$. There is indeed a small, but finite, sensitivity to the individual parameters. This is due to effects proportional to squares of the $`ϵ`$ parameters, together with the small difference between left- and right-handed couplings of the Standard Model, $`|g_\mathrm{L}^{\mathrm{}}||g_\mathrm{R}^{\mathrm{}}|`$.

## 3 Data fitting and derivation of constraints

Recently, the $`f\overline{f}`$ Subgroup of LEPEWWG presented preliminary combined results of measurements of the four LEP collaborations using experimental data from the full LEP2 available data set at energies from 130 GeV up to 207 GeV for the annihilation processes $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ . In particular, for lepton final states $`f=\mu `$ and $`\tau `$, the set of the average cross sections $`\sigma _{\mu \mu }`$, $`\sigma _{\tau \tau }`$ and forward-backward asymmetries $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{\mu \mu }`$, $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{\tau \tau }`$ and their experimental errors have been given for the 12 energy points listed in Table 1.

The data fitting procedure used is based on the method of least squares. We introduce a $`\chi ^2`$ function, which may be written in the following matrix form

$$\chi ^2(\mathit{ϵ})=(𝓞^{\mathrm{LEP2}}𝓞^{\mathrm{TH}}(\mathit{ϵ}))^\mathrm{T}V^1(𝓞^{\mathrm{LEP2}}𝓞^{\mathrm{TH}}(\mathit{ϵ})),$$
(18)
where $`\mathit{ϵ}=(ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}},ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}},ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}},ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}})`$ is the vector of C.I. parameters; $`𝓞^{\mathrm{LEP2}}`$ is the vector of values of observables measured at LEP2 and $`𝓞^{\mathrm{TH}}`$ is the vector of their theoretical predictions; finally, $`V`$ is the covariance matrix of the experimental uncertainties.

The chosen set of observables, represented by the vector $`𝓞^{\mathrm{LEP2}}`$, contains 48 elements (two kinds of observable for two flavour channels and twelve energy points). The corresponding theoretical predictions, $`𝓞^{\mathrm{TH}}`$, which depend on the CI parameters $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ and on radiative corrections via improved Born SM amplitudes , have been evaluated with $`m_{\mathrm{top}}=175`$ GeV and $`m_H=150`$ GeV. Initial- and final-state radiation are taken into account by the program ZFITTER  adapted to the present case of contact interactions. The radiative corrections were applied using definition “2” in Ref. : namely, for dilepton events $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$ is taken to be the bare invariant mass of the outgoing dilepton pair (as opposed to that of the $`s`$-channel propagator), the ISR-FSR photon interference is included and the signal is defined by the kinematical cut $`\sqrt{s^{}}>0.85\sqrt{s}`$. We note that the improved Born amplitudes leave the form of the previous equations for the cross sections, Eqs. (3) and (10) unaltered.

As regards the $`48\times 48`$ symmetric covariance matrix $`V`$, the diagonal entries are the experimental uncertainties on the observables, while the off-diagonal entries define the correlations between the observables as well as among the different energy points .

The least-square confidence region is determined by the condition

$$\chi ^2(\mathit{ϵ})\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2+\chi _{\mathrm{CL}}^2,$$
(19)
where $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ is the minimum value of the function $`\chi ^2(\mathit{ϵ})`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{CL}}^2=9.49`$ for $`95\%`$ CL and four degrees of freedom. The procedure of minimization $`\chi ^2(\mathit{ϵ})`$ is performed using the program package MINUIT .

Combining the $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ data, we show in Table 2 the components of the central value $`ϵ^0`$ (over-all minimum of $`\chi ^2`$) and the global limits (intervals $`(ϵ_{\mathrm{min}},ϵ_{\mathrm{max}})`$) obtained as projections of the confidence region on the corresponding axes. These intervals should be considered as global, model-independent, constraints on the CI parameters $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$. The $`\chi ^2`$ in the model-independent fits amounted to 41.3, for $`n_d=484=44`$ degrees of freedom: the probability of this result is $`p=0.411`$. For comparison, we give the 95% CL one-parameter constraints on $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$ parameters for the LL, RR, LR and RL contact-interaction models.

In Figs. 12 we show the contours which bound the regions found as “projections” of the four-dimensional confidence hypervolume determined by (19) on four of the two-dimensional planes (LL–RR), (LR–RL), (LL–LR), (LL–RL). The contours have been produced as the line connecting all points of the plane where $`\chi ^2`$ takes the value $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2+\chi _{\mathrm{CL}}^2`$ after minimization on the two remaining free parameters.

These figures show obvious symmetries. First of all, in Fig. 1, where we display the allowed regions in the ($`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}},ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}`$) and ($`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}},ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}})`$ planes, there is an approximate “reflection symmetry” between $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ as well as between $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}`$. As discussed in Sec. 2, the observables depend on $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}`$, and to lowest order in the $`ϵ`$’s, this translates into a dependence on $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}+ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}+ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}`$. Thus, in this approximation, the allowed regions would be bands at fixed $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}+ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}+ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}`$, representing strong correlations between pairs of parameters. The contributions of the second-order effects (in the $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$) delimit and curve these bands. In the case of the $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}`$$`ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}`$ exclusion region, the radius of curvature, given by an expression analogous to Eq. (16), is smaller than that of the $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}`$$`ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ exclusion region. This stronger bending originates from the destructive vs. constructive interference between photon- and $`Z`$-exchange: above the $`Z`$ resonance, $`g_\mathrm{L}^{\mathrm{}}g_\mathrm{R}^{\mathrm{}}\chi _Z<0`$, whereas $`(g_\mathrm{L}^{\mathrm{}})^2\chi _Z(g_\mathrm{R}^{\mathrm{}})^2\chi _Z>0`$, so $`|_{\mathrm{LR}}^{\mathrm{SM}}|=|_{\mathrm{RL}}^{\mathrm{SM}}|<|_{\mathrm{LL}}^{\mathrm{SM}}||_{\mathrm{RR}}^{\mathrm{SM}}|`$.

In Fig. 2, we show the analogous allowed regions in the ($`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}},ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}`$) and ($`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}},ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}`$) planes. The allowed regions in the ($`ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}},ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}`$) and ($`ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}},ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}`$) planes are very similar to those of this Fig. 2, and hence not shown.

In the figures, the constraints on the one-parameter models LL, RR LR and RL (see Table 2) are represented by bars. These correspond to one-dimensional model-dependent constraints at 95 % C.L. with $`\chi _{\mathrm{CL}}^2=3.84`$, obtained by varying only one parameter at a time with the remaining three set equal zero. The results in this case are in full agreement with those obtained in Ref. .

Figure 2 is rather different from Fig. 1, but the two panels are very similar among themselves. This is due to the symmetric inputs, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}`$, together with the fact that the linear approximation, determined by the interference between SM and CI couplings, provides a first, rough description of the bounds. Also, we note that there is little correlation between these pairs of parameters, and the allowed regions are simply

$$[ϵ_{\alpha \beta }<\delta ^{}][ϵ_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}<\delta ^{}][ϵ_{\alpha \beta }^2+ϵ_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}^2<\delta ^2],$$
(20)
where

$$\delta ^{}\text{max}(ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}})\text{or}\text{max}(ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}})\text{or}\text{max}(ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}),$$
(21)
as determined from Fig. 1. Similarly,

$$\delta ^2=[\text{max}(ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}})]^2+\{[\text{max}(ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}})]^2\text{or}[\text{max}(ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}})]^2\},$$
(22)
respectively, for the two panels. This simple shape is thus due to the lack of correlations among the parameters shown in Fig. 2.

## 4 Discussion

Our most important result is that if one does not restrict the analysis to individual models, the bounds on the $`ϵ`$’s are rather loose. In fact, any set of three of them (but not all four, as is seen from the correlations in Fig. 1) can be of the order of $`0.2\mathrm{TeV}^2`$. This corresponds to a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }2.2\mathrm{TeV}`$.

In the case of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}`$, as discussed above, the orientation of the “banana” in Fig. 1 implies that $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ should roughly add to zero. Rather large deviations from the SM are allowed, provided these parameters have opposite signs. It should be noted that, if one assumes universality, such opposite signs can never arise from the low-energy limit of a vector-particle exchange, irrespective of the chiralities of the couplings. This may in part explain why the present bounds are much looser than those of the model-dependent analyses.

Also, it should be stressed that we do not assume full lepton universality in this analysis. The muon and tau data are combined, but the couplings to those currents are not taken to be the same as the couplings to the electron of the initial state. If lepton universality were imposed, one would have the additional constraint $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}`$. Also, full lepton universality would imply the product $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}>0`$, and much of the allowed part of Fig. 1 would be excluded. We note that there are models without flavour universality, where $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ can have opposite signs (see, e.g. ).

Up to this point, we have combined the muon and tau data. It is also interesting to study these two data sets separately. In Fig. 3 we show the contours which bound the allowed regions in the $`(ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}},ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}})`$ and $`(ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}},ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}})`$ planes for $`e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ (i.e., without using the muon data). The general shapes of these allowed regions are rather similar to those obtained from the combined data, but they are significantly larger. The corresponding allowed intervals of the $`ϵ`$ parameters are given in Table 3, the analogue of Table 2. The model-independent global limits, for example, are looser than the combined muon and tau analysis by up to $`40\%`$. The muon data alone give shapes and allowed intervals quite similar to those in Fig. 3 and Table 3, respectively, but narrower, essentially reflecting the larger total error in the $`\tau `$ case.

In specific models, there are often constraints on these deviations $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$. For example, the $`Z^{}`$ couplings of $`E_6`$ models lead to the constraints :

$`Z_\chi ^{}:`$ $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}<0,ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}=9ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}<0,`$ (23)
$`Z_\psi ^{}:`$ $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}>0,ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}<0,`$ (24)
$`Z_\eta ^{}:`$ $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}<0,ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}<0.`$ (25)
These signs are given by the signs of the couplings, together with the low-energy limit of the propagator. The leptonic data studied here, lead to the $`M_Z^{}`$ bounds: $`Z_\chi ^{}`$: $`600\text{GeV}`$; $`Z_\psi ^{}`$: $`330\text{GeV}`$; $`Z_\eta ^{}`$: $`340\text{GeV}`$. The corresponding bounds from all data  are 670 GeV, 480 GeV and 430 GeV, respectively.

Also, in the case of models with TeV-scale extra dimensions (with Kaluza–Klein excitations of the photon and the $`Z`$), there are relations among the couplings : $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}<0`$, and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}/4s_W^2ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}<0`$. For one extra dimension, the bound on the compactification scale  is $`M_c>2.2\text{TeV}`$.

As anticipated in the Introduction, we shall here consider an example application, namely the effects of anomalous gauge couplings  in the process (1). We note that this model, which assumes universality, is characterized by two parameters, $`f_{DB}`$ and $`f_{DW}`$. The deviations (7) will take the form

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}=\alpha _{e.m.}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_{DW}}{2s_W^2}+\frac{2\stackrel{~}{f}_{DB}}{c_W^2}\right),ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}=\alpha _{e.m.}\frac{8\stackrel{~}{f}_{DB}}{c_W^2},ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}=\alpha _{e.m.}\frac{4\stackrel{~}{f}_{DB}}{c_W^2},$$
(26)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{DB}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{DW}`$ are related to $`f_{DB}`$ and $`f_{DW}`$ of ref.  by $`\stackrel{~}{f}=f/m_t^2`$. In this model, one has $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LR}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{RL}}`$, so any deviation would be restricted to lie along the dashed line in Fig. 4, which shows a magnification of the allowed band in Fig. 1 (right panel) for $`\chi _{\mathrm{CL}}^2=5.99`$, corresponding to two parameters. The intersections with the allowed bounds allow us to set a limit on $`|\stackrel{~}{f}_{DB}|<0.21\text{TeV}^2`$. This also amounts to a bound on $`ϵ_{\mathrm{RR}}`$. From the analogue of Fig. 1 (left panel), corresponding to two parameters, one can extract bounds on $`ϵ_{\mathrm{LL}}`$. Using Eq. (26), these can then be converted to the bounds: $`1.7\text{TeV}^2<\stackrel{~}{f}_{DW}<1.1\text{TeV}^2`$.

We have not analyzed the quark data, which is of poorer quality, due to the limited efficiency of $`b`$-tagging, together with the problem of distinguishing $`b`$ from $`\overline{b}`$ jets (see, however, Ref. ).

At the Linear Collider, where polarization would be available, more observables can be studied, such as $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{LR},\mathrm{FB}}`$. Thus, and because of the higher energy, dramatically tighter constraints are foreseen .

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by the Research Council of Norway, by MIUR (Italian Ministry of University and Research) and by funds of the University of Trieste. We would like to thank our colleagues of the Alice, BaBar and Compass collaborations for the use of their computing facilities, which significantly sped up our work.


text:
# Breakup of the weakly bound 17F nucleus

## I Introduction

The Coulomb dissociation method BBR86  is now a standard experimental tool as a source of information on radioactive capture processes of astrophysical interest. It can be shown that the breakup cross sections of a projectile nucleus in the Coulomb field of a target is proportional to the cross section for photo-dissociation BB85 . The radiative capture cross sections can be obtained via detailed balance BBR86 . Thus, by measuring the Coulomb breakup of nuclear projectiles, specially at high bombarding energies ($`50200`$ MeV/nucleon), one can obtain information on the radiative capture cross section of interest. This goal has indeed been achieved in numerous experiments for the study of 4He$`(\text{d},\gamma )^6`$Li Kie93 , 12C$`(\text{n},\gamma )^{13}`$C Kie91 ; Mot91 , 11C$`(\text{p},\gamma )^{12}`$N Lef95 , and 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O Tat95 . More recently, this method has been used exhaustively in the study of the reaction7Be$`(\text{p},\gamma )^8`$B Mot94 ; Kik98 ; Iw99 ; Da01 ; Dav98 ; Dav01 , considered the most important one for the standard solar model Bah98 .

Under some circumstances the relation between the Coulomb breakup measurements and the radiative capture cross sections of interest is not so straightforward. First the radiative capture cross sections contain contributions of different electric and magnetic multipolarities which enter with different weights in the Coulomb breakup cross sections. For example, while the radiative E2 capture is very small in the reaction 7Be$`(\text{p},\gamma )^8`$B within the solar environment, its contribution is amplified in the Coulomb breakup experiments. Separation of the two contributions one depends on the structure model used for the 8B nucleus KS94 ; GB95 ; EB96 ; BG98 . Secondly, the nuclear contribution to the breakup has to be separated from the Coulomb breakup BG98 . Finally, Coulomb reacceleration effects BBK92 ; Ie93 ; BBe93 ; EBB95 ; NT99  have to be controlled.

The Coulomb reacceleration effects are indeed one of the main concerns in extracting the astrophysical S-factor for the reaction 7Be$`(\text{p},\gamma )^8`$B. These effects are filtered from the data by comparing them with dynamical calculations of Coulomb breakup BBK92 ; Ie93 ; BBe93 ; EBB95 ; NT99 . Due to its relevance for the application of the Coulomb dissociation method, it is desirable to study a system where the astrophysical S-factors have been measured directly at the stellar energies and where dynamical effects can be tested. Apparently, the breakup of 17F is a good candidate. The ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{17}F`$ is loosely-bound (600 keV of separation energy into proton + 16O) and its only excited state is one of the best halo states known sofar in nuclear physics, being bound by only 100 keV. Besides, the S-factor for the radiative capture reaction $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ has been measured down to 200 keV Mor97 . Indeed, the breakup of the weakly bound 17F well above the barrier has been considered as an important test of the dynamical breakup mechanism Li00 . First theoretical analysis of this reaction has been done in ref. EB02 .

In this work we study the breakup of 17F into proton + 16O, which would be relevant for the purpose of testing Coulomb dynamical effects by a comparison with experimental results. Thus, we do not consider the stripping of the proton from 17F, or the breakup into other channels. We will only consider two breakup mechanisms: the Coulomb and the elastic nuclear breakup (or diffraction dissociation). If the proton and the 16O fragments are measured in coincidence, these are the only two mechanisms of interest. We restrict our calculation to first order perturbation theory, as we want to learn about the feasibility of such experiments. We also restrict ourselves to bombarding energies of 65 MeV/nucleon, typical of laboratories like GANIL/France, GSI/Germany, NSCL/USA and RIKEN/Japan, where previous Coulomb dissociation experiments have been carried out.

We show that the Coulomb breakup cross sections are too small to allow for a reliable experimental counting rate. Also, the reaction is dominated by the elastic nuclear breakup mechanism which is more model dependent than the Coulomb breakup. The details of our calculations are presented in section 2, where we show that a single particle model is able to explain the astrophysical S-factor for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ at the lowest energies. In section 3 we present our calculations for Coulomb breakup and in section 4 for elastic nuclear breakup. Our conclusions are presented in section 5.

## II Potential model for $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$

In the present calculation, we treat 17F as the combination of a proton and an inert 16O core with spin 0. The proton-oxygen wavefunction is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{lj}\left(𝐫\right)=\frac{u_{lj}\left(r\right)}{r}\underset{m,m_s}{}(l\frac{1}{2}m_lm_s|jm)Y_{lm_l}\left(\widehat{𝐫}\right)\chi _{m_s},$$
(1)
where $`\chi _{m_s}`$ is the spinor wavefunction.

The radial wave functions $`R_{lj}(r)`$ are solutions of the radial Schrödinger equation for the proton-core motion with the potential

$$V(𝐫)=V_0[1F_{s.o.}(𝐥.𝐬)\frac{r_0}{r}\frac{d}{dr}][1+\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{rR}{a}\right)]^1+V_C(r)$$
(2)
where

$`V_C(r)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{8e^2}{r}}\mathrm{for}r>R_C`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4e^2}{r}}\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{R_C^2}}\right)\mathrm{for}r<R_C.`$ (3)
We use $`a=0.6`$ fm, $`R_C=R=3.27`$ fm, $`F_{s.o.}=0.341`$ fm, and $`r_0=1.25`$ fm. For the $`\frac{5}{2}^+`$ d-wave ground state, we use the potential depth $`V_0=49.66`$ MeV, which reproduces the separation energy of 0.6 MeV. For the $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$ s-wave, we use $`V_0=50.65`$ MeV, which reproduces the separation energy of 0.1 MeV of the only excited state in $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$.

The continuum wavefunctions are calculated with the same potential model parameters as the $`\frac{5}{2}^+`$ ground state. They are normalized so as to satisfy the relation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_c|\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{}=\delta \left(E_cE_c^{}\right)\delta _{jj^{}}\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{},}$$
(4)
what means, in practice, that the continuum wavefunctions $`u_{Elj}(r)`$ are normalized to $`\sqrt{2m_{bc}/\pi \mathrm{}^2k}\mathrm{sin}(kr+\delta _{lj})`$ at large $`r`$, where $`k`$ is the relative momentum of the fragments $`b`$ and $`c`$ (oxygen and proton, respectively).

The S-factor for the direct capture from a continuum state to the bound state, with spin $`j_0`$, is given by

$$S_\lambda \left(E_{cm}\right)=\frac{\left(2\pi \right)^3\left(\lambda +1\right)}{2\lambda \left[\left(2\lambda +1\right)!!\right]^2}\frac{1}{k}\left(\frac{E_x}{\mathrm{}c}\right)^{2\lambda +1}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi \eta \left(E_{cm}\right)\right]\left|𝒪_\lambda (E_{cm};lj;l_0j_0)\right|^2$$
(5)
where $`\lambda =1`$, or 2, for E1, or E2 transitions, respectively. The electromagnetic matrix element $`𝒪_\lambda (E_{cm};lj;l_0j_0)`$ is given by

$`𝒪_\lambda (E_{cm};lj;l_0j_0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e_\lambda }{\sqrt{4\pi }}}(1)^{j_0+l_0+lj}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\left(1\right)^{l+l_0+\lambda }}{2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{j_0}}{\widehat{ȷ}}}(j_0\frac{1}{2}\lambda 0|j\frac{1}{2})`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }u_{Elj}(r)u_{l_0j_0}(r)r^\lambda dr,`$ (6)
with the notation $`\widehat{j}\sqrt{2j+1}`$, and $`e_\lambda =Z_be(A_c/A_a)^\lambda +Z_ce(A_b/A_a)^\lambda `$ where $`a^{17}`$F, $`b^{16}`$O and $`c`$p, respectively.

In a similar fashion, the photo-absorption cross section for the reaction $`\gamma +ab+c`$ is given by

$$\sigma _\gamma ^{(\lambda )}\left(E_{cm}\right)=\frac{\left(2\pi \right)^3\left(\lambda +1\right)}{\lambda \left[\left(2\lambda +1\right)!!\right]^2}\left(\frac{\mu _{bc}}{\mathrm{}^2k}\right)\left(\frac{E_x}{\mathrm{}c}\right)^{2\lambda 1}\left|𝒪_\lambda (E_{cm};lj;l_0j_0)\right|^2,$$
(7)
while the photo-absorption cross section for the ground state to excited state transition $`\gamma +a\left(5/2^+\right)a\left(1/2^+\right)`$ is given by

$$\sigma _\gamma ^{(\lambda )}\left(E_x\right)=\frac{\left(2\pi \right)^3\left(\lambda +1\right)}{\lambda \left[\left(2\lambda +1\right)!!\right]^2}\left(\frac{E_x}{\mathrm{}c}\right)^{2\lambda 1}\left|𝒪_\lambda (l_1j_1;l_0j_0)\right|^2\delta \left(E_fE_iE_x\right),$$
(8)
where $`\left|𝒪_\lambda (l_1j_1;l_0j_0)\right|`$ is given by eq. 6, with the wavefunction of the $`1/2^+`$ state replacing $`u_{Elj}(r),`$ and with $`E_fE_i=0.5`$ MeV.

In figure 1, we show the S-factor for the radiative capture reaction $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{F}`$. The data points are from ref. Mor97 . We only show the low-energy part of the spectrum, up to $`E_{cm}=2`$ MeV. The solid curves are the result of calculations following the direct capture model as described above. The data are reasonably well described by the model, but the model overestimates the capture cross sections into the $`1/2^+`$ state for energies greater than 1 MeV.

In figure 2, we show the photo-absorption cross sections for transitions from the ground state (upper figure) and from the first excited state (lower figure) to the continuum. The curves are calculated within the direct capture model and are given as a function of the photon energy $`E_\gamma =E_x=E_{cm}+S_p,`$ where $`E_x`$ is the excitation energy and $`S_p`$ is the separation energy. Only shown are the E1 transition cross sections as the E2 cross sections are at least a factor of $`10^3`$ smaller. The p-waves dominate the transitions for lower energies from the ground state to the continuum, but the f-wave contributions dominate at higher energies, of 2 MeV and above. The photo-absorption cross section for the transitions from the $`1/2^+`$ to the continuum is shown in the lower panel.

There is also a contribution for the excitation of the $`1/2^+`$ bound-state from the ground state. This contribution was calculated by using eq. 8. The cross section value integrated over the line is $`\sigma _\gamma ^{(5/2^+1/2^+)}\left(E_x\right)𝑑E_x=7\times 10^6`$ mb MeV. The result can be translated into a B(E2)-value for the down transition $`B(E2;1/2^+5/2^+)=61.5e^2`$ fm2, which is rather close to the experimental value of $`66.4\pm 1.4`$ e$`^2`$fm2 Ajz71 . This is indeed verified in more elaborate calculations BAM77 , the reason being that the loosely-bound states in 17F have a small overlap with the core, thus leading to a small core polarization. Single particle states are thus a good approximation for these states.

One observes from figure 2 that the photo-absorption cross sections have maxima at rather high energies, ($`E_{\mathrm{max}}10`$ MeV for the g.s. and $`E_{\mathrm{max}}3`$ MeV for the excited state) in contrast to the photo-absorption cross sections of neutron halo nuclei BB88a . As explained in ref. BB88a , the photo dissociation cross section peaks at an energy of about twice the binding energy of neutron halo states. The cause of the peaks moving towards the higher energies is the Coulomb barrier which produces a reduction of the overlap integral in eq. 6. The result is an effective separation energy that is much larger than in neutron halo systems with the same separation energies.

## III Coulomb breakup

Since there are no data for the elastic scattering of $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ on $`\mathrm{Pb}`$ targets at high bombarding energies, we construct an optical potential using an effective interaction of the M3Y type KBS84 ; BLS97  modified so as to reproduce the energy dependence of total reaction cross sections, i.e. BLS97 ,

$$t(E,s)=i\frac{\mathrm{}v}{2t_0}\sigma _{NN}(E_{lab})\left[1i\alpha (E_{lab})\right]t(s),$$
(9)
where $`t_0=421`$ MeV fm3 is the volume integral of the M3Y interaction $`t(s)`$, $`s`$ is the nucleon-nucleon separation distance, $`\mathrm{v}`$ is the projectile velocity, $`\sigma _{NN}`$ is the nucleon-nucleon cross section, and $`\alpha `$ is the real-to-imaginary ratio of the forward nucleon-nucleon scattering amplitude. At 65 MeV/nucleon, we use $`\sigma _{NN}=82`$ fm2 and $`\alpha =0.96`$.

The optical potential is given by

$$U(E_{lab},𝐑)=d^3r_1d^3r_2\rho __P(𝐫_1)\rho __T(𝐫_2)t(E_{lab},s),$$
(10)
where $`𝐬=𝐑+𝐫_2𝐫_1`$, and $`\rho __T`$ ($`\rho __P`$) is the ground state density of the target (projectile). For the proton, we use a gaussian density characterized by a width of 0.7 fm. For 16O and 208Pb we use the matter densities tabulated in ref. Vri87 .

Following ref. BN93 , the Coulomb amplitude for E1 transitions is given by

$$f_{E1}^{(jm,j_0m_0)}=2\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{3}}i^\mu \frac{Z_Te\mu _{_{PT}}}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(\frac{E_x}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{v}}\right)j_0m_01\left(mm_0\right)|jm𝒪_1(E_{cm};lj;l_0j_0)g_\mu \left(\gamma \right)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu (q),$$
(11)
where $`\mu _{PT}`$ is the reduced mass of the target + projectile, v is their relative velocity, $`\gamma =\left(1\mathrm{v}^2/c^2\right)^{1/2}`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu (q)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑bbJ_\mu (qb)K_\mu \left(\frac{E_xb}{\gamma \mathrm{}\mathrm{v}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\chi (b)\right],$$
(12)
where $`q=2p_{cm}\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)`$, $`p_{cm}`$ is the center of mass bombarding momentum and $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle. The function $`J_\mu (K_\mu )`$ is the cylindrical (modified) Bessel function of order $`\mu `$. The functions $`g_\mu \left(\gamma \right)`$ are given by

$$g_0=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\gamma },g_1=g_1=i.$$
(13)
The eikonal phase, $`\chi (b)`$, is given by

$$\chi (b)=2\eta \mathrm{ln}(kb)\frac{1}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{v}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zU_{opt}(R),$$
(14)
where $`\eta =Z_PZ_Te^2/\mathrm{}\mathrm{v}`$, $`\mathrm{}k=p_{cm}`$ is the center of mass momentum, and $`R=\sqrt{b^2+z^2}`$. The optical potential, $`U_{opt}`$, in the above equation is given by eq. 10.

In a similar fashion, the E2 transition amplitudes are given by

$$f_{E2}^{(jm,j_0m_0)}=2\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{30}}i^\mu \frac{Z_Te\mu _{_{PT}}}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(\frac{E_x}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{v}}\right)^2j_0m_02\mu |jm𝒪_2(E_{cm};lj;l_0j_0)h_\mu \left(\gamma \right)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu (q),$$
(15)
where $`\mu =mm_0`$, and

$$h_0=i\frac{\sqrt{6}}{\gamma },h_1=h_1=\left(1+1/\gamma ^2\right),h_2=h_2=i\frac{1}{\gamma }.$$
(16)
The cross section for Coulomb excitation of a state with angular momentum $`j`$ and excitation energy $`E_x`$ is obtained by averaging (and summing) over the initial (final) angular momentum projections:

$$\frac{d^2\sigma _C^{(lj)}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }dE_x}=\frac{1}{2j_0+1}\underset{m_0,m}{}\left|f_{E1}^{(jm,j_0m_0)}+f_{E2}^{(jm,j_0m_0)}\right|^2.$$
(17)
The E1 and E2 amplitudes do not interfere in the cross section after summation over angular momentum projections. This can easily be seen using the orthonormality condition of the Clebsh-Gordan coefficients:

$$\underset{m_0,m}{}j_0m_02\mu |jmj_0m_01\mu |jm=0.$$
(18)
Thus, eq. 17 is just a sum of cross sections for the E1 and E2 excitations separately:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _C^{(lj)}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }dE_x}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{E1}^{(lj)}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }dE_x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{E2}^{(lj)}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }dE_x}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{n_{E1}(E_x,\theta )}{E_x}}\sigma _\gamma ^{(\lambda j)}\left(E_x\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n_{E2}(E_x,\theta )}{E_x}}\sigma _\gamma ^{(\lambda j)}\left(E_x\right).`$ (19)
where the virtual photon numbers $`n_{E1}`$ and $`n_{E2}`$ are given by

$`n_{E1}(E_x,\theta )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{Z_T^2\alpha }{\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c}{\mathrm{v}}}\right)^2\left[\zeta _1\left(\omega \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}\zeta _0\left(\omega \right)\right]`$
$`n_{E2}(E_x,\theta )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{Z_T^2\alpha }{\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c}{\mathrm{v}}}\right)^4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}\zeta _2\left(\omega \right)+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}\right)^2\zeta _1\left(\omega \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\gamma ^2}}\zeta _0\left(\omega \right)\right],`$ (20)
with $`\alpha =1/137`$ and

$$\zeta _\mu \left(\omega \right)=2\pi \left(\frac{\omega }{\gamma \mathrm{v}}\right)^2𝑑bbK_\mu ^2\left(\frac{\omega b}{\gamma \mathrm{v}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[2\mathrm{Im}\chi \left(b\right)\right].$$
(21)
Figure 3 shows the Coulomb breakup cross section $`d\sigma /dE`$ (in mb/MeV) for the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$(65 MeV/nucleon) $`+\mathrm{Pb}^{16}\mathrm{O}+\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{Pb}`$, as a function of the proton-$`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ relative energy, in MeV. The smaller panel on the upper right corner of the figure shows the cross section at energies up to $`E_{cm}=2`$ MeV. One sees that the E1 breakup mode is dominant at all energies.

Although the E2 contribution to the photo-dissociation cross section is very small it is amplified in the Coulomb dissociation due to the large abundance of E2 photons at the bombarding energy considered BB88 . However, the E2 contribution to $`d\sigma /dE`$ is only relevant at $`E_{cm}3`$ MeV where the cross section has a peak. We also note that this cross section is about a factor $`10^3`$ smaller than the Coulomb breakup cross section for the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ $`+\mathrm{Pb}^7\mathrm{Be}+\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{Pb}`$ at similar bombarding energies Mot94 ; Kik98 ; Iw99 ; Da01 ; Dav98 ; Dav01 . Thus, it is much more likely that the breakup is dominated by the nuclear interaction in this case. We will demonstrate this to be indeed the case in the next section.

The angle integrated cross sections for ground state to continuum transitions are $`\sigma _{E1}=0.88`$ mb, $`\sigma _{E2}=0.054`$ mb and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{total}}=0.94`$ mb, respectively. This should be compared to the cross section for the excitation of the 1/2+ state which is 0.33 mb. These cross sections are small and hard to measure with reliable accuracy at present laboratory facilities. Also, since the strength of the Coulomb breakup is much reduced for $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ as compared to the breakup of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ projectiles, one also expects that higher order effects, which play a role in the breakup of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$, become smaller in the case of $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ breakup.

## IV Nuclear breakup

The nuclear breakup is due to the nuclear interaction

$$U(𝐑,𝐫)=U_\mathrm{p}\left(𝐫_\mathrm{p}\right)+U_\mathrm{O}\left(𝐫_\mathrm{O}\right)U_\mathrm{F}\left(𝐑\right),$$
(22)
where $`U_\mathrm{p}\left(𝐫_\mathrm{p}\right)`$, $`U_\mathrm{O}\left(𝐫_\mathrm{O}\right),`$ and $`U_\mathrm{F}\left(𝐑\right)`$ are the optical potentials for the scattering of the proton, oxygen, and fluorine, off the target, respectively. The vectors $`𝐫_\mathrm{p}`$$`𝐫_\mathrm{O}`$, and $`𝐑`$ are their respective coordinates relative to the target (see figure 4). The fluorine-projectile potential is only responsible for the center of mass scattering and does not influence the 17F breakup.

The DWBA matrix element for the breakup, under the assumption of spherically symmetric potentials, is given by

$$T_\mathrm{N}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}\left(𝐑\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_E\left(𝐫\right)|U_\mathrm{p}\left(\left|𝐑\beta _1𝐫\right|\right)+U_\mathrm{O}\left(\left|𝐑\beta _2𝐫\right|\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{g.s.}\left(𝐫\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}\left(𝐑\right),$$
(23)
where r denotes the relative coordinate between the proton and the oxygen core in $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}\left(𝐑\right)`$ is the ingoing and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}\left(𝐑\right)`$ is the outgoing center of mass (c.m.) scattering wavefunction, and where $`\beta _1=16/17`$ and $`\beta _2=1/17`$ (see fig. 4).

For the c.m. scattering at high energies one can use the eikonal approximation which implies

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}\left(𝐑\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}\left(𝐑\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left[i𝐪𝐑+i\chi (b)\right],$$
(24)
where $`𝐪=𝐤^{}𝐤`$ is the momentum transfer to the c.m. and $`\chi (b)`$ is the eikonal phase for the c.m. scattering, given by eq. 14. Since the momentum transfer is small compared to the total projectile momentum, we can use $`q=2p_{cm}\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)`$, where $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle.

It is appropriate to expand the potentials $`U_i\left(\left|𝐑\beta _i𝐫\right|\right)`$ into multipoles to exploit the spherical symmetry of the states in $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$. One has then

$$U_i\left(\left|𝐑\beta _i𝐫\right|\right)=\underset{\lambda }{}_\lambda ^{(i)}(r,R)P_\lambda \left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)=\underset{\lambda \mu }{}\frac{4\pi }{2\lambda +1}_\lambda ^{(i)}(r,R)Y_{\lambda \mu }(\widehat{𝐑})Y_{\lambda \mu }^{}(\widehat{𝐫}),$$
(25)
where

$$_\lambda ^{(i)}(r,R)=\frac{2\lambda +1}{2}_1^1𝑑\xi P_\lambda \left(\xi \right)U_i\left(\sqrt{\beta _i^2r^2+R^22\beta _irR\xi }\right),$$
(26)
and $`P_\lambda \left(\xi \right)`$ are the Legendre polynomials.

Employing eq. 1 and the angular momentum algebra, we get for the case of excitation into a continuum state with angular momentum quantum numbers $`jm`$

$`T_\mathrm{N}^{(j_0m_0;jm;\lambda )}`$ $`=i\sqrt{4\pi }(1)^{m_0}j_0m_0\lambda \mu |jm\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\left(1\right)^{l+l_0+\lambda }}{2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{j_0}\widehat{ȷ}}{\widehat{\lambda }^3}}(j_0\frac{1}{2}\lambda 0|j\frac{1}{2})`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dru_{Elj}(r)u_{l_0j_0}(r)𝒢_{\lambda \mu }(r,𝐪),`$ (27)
where $`\mu =mm_0`$, the function $`𝒢`$ is

$`𝒢_{\lambda \mu }(r,𝐪)`$ $`={\displaystyle d^3R\mathrm{exp}\left[i𝐪𝐑+i\chi (b)\right]_\lambda (r,R)Y_{\lambda \mu }^{}(\widehat{𝐑})}`$
$`=4\pi i^\lambda Y_{\lambda \mu }^{}(\widehat{𝐪}){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑RR^2j_\lambda \left(qR\right)_\lambda (r,R)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\chi (R)\right],`$ (28)
and $`_\lambda (r,R)=_i_\lambda ^{(i)}(r,R)`$.

In obtaining the last result in the equation above we have used the approximation $`\chi (b)\chi (R)`$ which is here well justified, since the breakup occurs at the contact surface between the two nuclei, at which point $`z0`$. Another simplifying approximation is to assume that the momentum transfer to the c.m. is mostly in the perpendicular direction, following the spirit of the eikonal approximation. Thus, we make the substitution $`Y_{\lambda \mu }^{}(\widehat{𝐪})Y_{\lambda \mu }^{}(\frac{\pi }{2})`$, and eq. 28 becomes

$`𝒢_{\lambda \mu }(r,𝐪)`$ $`=i^\lambda \left(1\right)^{\left(\lambda +\mu \right)/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\left(1\right)^{\lambda +\mu }}{2}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\left(1\right)^{l+l_0+\lambda }}{2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4\pi \left(2\lambda +1\right)\left(\lambda \mu \right)!\left(\lambda +\mu \right)!}}{\left(\lambda \mu \right)!!\left(\lambda +\mu \right)!!}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dRR^2j_\lambda \left(qR\right)_\lambda (r,R)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\chi (R)\right].`$ (29)
The (elastic) nuclear breakup cross scattering amplitude is given by ($`\lambda +\mu =\mathrm{even}`$)

$`f_\mathrm{N}^{(j_0m_0;jm;\lambda )}\left(\theta \right)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{_{PT}}}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}}T_\mathrm{N}^{(j_0m_0;jm;\lambda )}`$
$`=i{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{_{PT}}}{\mathrm{}^2}}(1)^{m_0+(\lambda +\mu )/2}j_0m_0\lambda \mu |jm\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\left(1\right)^{\lambda +\mu }}{2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\left(\lambda \mu \right)!\left(\lambda +\mu \right)!}}{\left(\lambda \mu \right)!!\left(\lambda +\mu \right)!!}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }dRR^2j_\lambda \left(qR\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\chi (R)\right]𝒪_\lambda ^{(N)}(E_{cm};R;lj;l_0j_0),`$ (30)
where

$$𝒪_\lambda ^{(N)}(E_{cm};R;lj;l_0j_0)=\left[\frac{1+\left(1\right)^{l+l_0+\lambda }}{2}\right]\frac{\widehat{j_0}\widehat{ȷ}}{\widehat{\lambda }^2}(j_0\frac{1}{2}\lambda 0|j\frac{1}{2})_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ru_{Elj}(r)u_{l_0j_0}(r)_\lambda (r,R),$$
(31)
and the cross section is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _N^{(lj)}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }dE}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2j_0+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_0,m,\lambda }{}}\left|f_\mathrm{N}^{(j_0m_0;jm;\lambda )}\left(\theta \right)\right|^2`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{_{PT}}}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}C\left(\lambda jj_0\right)\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑RR^2j_\lambda \left(qR\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\chi (R)\right]𝒪_\lambda ^{(N)}(E_{cm};R;lj;l_0j_0)}\right|^2`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{_{PT}}}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑RR^2j_\lambda \left(qR\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\chi (R)\right]\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_\lambda ^{(N)}(E_{cm};R;lj;l_0j_0)}\right|^2,`$ (32)
with

$$C\left(\lambda jj_0\right)=\frac{1}{2j_0+1}\underset{\begin{array}{c}m_0,m\\ (\lambda +\mu =\mathrm{even})\end{array}}{}j_0m_0\lambda \mu |jm^2\frac{\left(\lambda \mu \right)!\left(\lambda +\mu \right)!}{\left[\left(\lambda \mu \right)!!\left(\lambda +\mu \right)!!\right]^2},$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_\lambda ^{(N)}(E_{cm};R;lj;l_0j_0)=\sqrt{C\left(\lambda jj_0\right)}𝒪_\lambda ^{(N)}(E_{cm};R;lj;l_0j_0).$$
(33)
In figure 5, we plot the real part of the overlap function $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_\lambda ^{(N)}`$ as a function of $`R`$, for $`\lambda =0`$, 1 and 2, at $`E_{cm}=1`$ MeV. For $`\lambda =0`$, only the transition from the d$`\frac{5}{2}`$ ground state to the d$`\frac{5}{2}`$ continuum states is accounted for. For $`\lambda =1`$, transitions to the p$`\frac{3}{2}`$, f$`\frac{5}{2}`$, and f$`\frac{7}{2}`$ are included, while for $`\lambda =2`$ the transitions to the s$`\frac{1}{2}`$, d$`\frac{3}{2}`$ and d$`\frac{5}{2}`$ were considered. One observes that the overlap function $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_\lambda ^{(N)}`$ extends to large distances $`R`$ between the c.m. of the two nuclei (especially for $`\lambda =1,2`$). The low distance part of this function is not relevant, due to the nuclear absorption at low impact parameters (included in the factor $`\mathrm{exp}\left[i\chi (R)\right]`$ of eq. 32). The imaginary part of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_\lambda ^{(N)}`$ has a similar behavior as the real part.

In figure 6, we plot the elastic nuclear breakup cross section as a function of energy, obtained by integrating eq. 32 over angles. The dashed, solid and dashed-dotted curves represent the contributions of the $`\lambda =0`$, 1, and 2 multipolaritites, respectively. One observes that the nuclear breakup cross sections are at least two orders of magnitude larger than the Coulomb cross sections, as diplayed in figure 3. The elastic nuclear breakup also leads to fragments with larger relative energies. We have noticed this result does not vary appreciably with the bombarding energy.

In figure 7, we plot the total (solid curve) breakup cross section as a function of the relative energy of the proton + 16O. The cross section includes elastic nuclear and Coulomb breakup and Coulomb-nuclear interference. The figure is shown for the energies of interest for astrophysics, up to 2 MeV. The dashed curve is for the elastic nuclear breakup only. One clearly sees that the Coulomb breakup accounts only for a tiny fraction of the total breakup cross section.

Finally, in figure 8 the angular distribution of the Coulomb and nuclear breakup modes are compared. The distribution was obtained by integration of the double differential cross section, eq. 32, over energy. One observes that even at the very forward angles where the Coulomb excitation is by comparison strongest, the nuclear breakup dominate.

## V Conclusions

We have analyzed the possibility of using the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$(65 MeV/nucleon) $`+\mathrm{Pb}^{16}\mathrm{O}+\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{Pb}`$ for the purpose of studying the Coulomb reacceleration effects.

We have shown that the exclusive cross section is dominated by the elastic nuclear breakup. This shows that this reaction is not very useful for this purpose, even if the impact parameter is selected by imposing an upper cut on the center of mass scattering angle. In this case, the contribution of the nuclear dissociation is reduced considerably, as shown in ref. EB02 . However, the Coulomb breakup cross section is also reduced. Since the total Coulomb breakup cross section only amounts to fractions of milibarns, we predict a very small counting rate for an experiment dedicated to this study.

## Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grants No. PHY-007091 and PHY-00-70818.