CHAPTER-I

I N T R O D U C T I O N
1.1 Nuclear Structure ; A Historical Perspective

Nuclear structure studies consist.of determining the

properties of the ground and excited nuclear states. These states
are described in terms of nuclear parameters; the relevant ones
being, the energy (E), the total angular momentum or spin (I),
parity ( K ), the static electric and magnetic moments of the
state, transition probabilities and branching ratios of the de-
excitation radiations from the state. The information about these
nuclear properties is mainly obtained from studies of nuclear
reactions and decay of radioactive nuclei. With the advent of
strong sources from accelerators and reactors and variable energy
accelerators, these studies received a great impetus. The large
accumulation of data arising from these investigations laid the
ground work for a systematic study of nuclear spectra. Based on
these systematic studies a number of theoretical attempts have
been made to understand the properties of low-lying nuclear states.

The ultimate aim of any theory is to account for the

observable properties of the system in terms of the fundamental
forcqsof the system; so also the final goal of the nuclear
structure physics, is of course to account for the properties of
complex nuclei in terms of nuclear forces. The nuclear forces are
not known precisely and a quantitative theory of nucleonic
interaction still remains to be developed. The second basic
difficulty is that, even if the nuclear forces were known, there
would still remain the difficulty of solving Schrodinger equation
v;ith 3(A-1) spatial degrees of freedom; A being the total number
of nucleons present in the nucleus. Nuclei consist of many
strongly interacting particles whose number (approximately 70-90
for a medium mass nucleus) is neither so small that exact
calculations can be performed, nor so large that statistical
techniques can be used.

These difficulties have led to formulation of a number of

nuclear models, A nuclear model is a simplified picture of the
nucleus that explains various properties of the nuclear levels in
a certain region of the periodic table, A good model should
describe the properties of the ground and excited nuclear states
as also the de-excitation of excited nuclear levels in a simple
mathematical treatment.

One of the earliest models developed was the liquid drop

model. The model was based on the experimentally observed fact
that nuclear force between nucleons has saturation characteristics.
A number of developments helped establish the model. In 1935 Von
1)
V/eizsacker used the liquid drop model, and developed the semi-
empirical mass formula that correctly fitted the observed beta
2 3)
decay energies. The compound nucleus theory of nuclear reactions * '
that successfully explained many experimental observations
received a natural interpretation on this modelo In 1939 Bohr
and Wheeler developed a theory of nuclear fission based on
this model.

Inspite of its many successes, many limitations had been

found in the capabilities of the liquid drop model to explain
several experimentally observed properties of nucleic It had to
be recognised by mid forties that nuclei having 2,8,20,50,82 or
126 (called magic numbers) number of protons or neutrons have
special properties e.g. large natural abundance, extra stability
compared with neighbouring nuclei, etc These observations led to
the develop^ient of the shell model in analogy with the atomic
shell structure. By the early 1950's, largely through the v.-ork of
Mayer \ Feenberg , Nordheira and Haxel, Jensen and Suess ,
these magic number nuclei had become associated with the concept

of closed shells in nuclear individual particle structure.

9)
According to the shell model '', the nucleons (neutrons and protons)
are assumed to move independently of each other in a common
spherically symmetric central potential which must be supplemented
by an additional spin-orbit force. This concept leads to discrete
single particle levels of definite spin and parity which are
occupied by the neutrons and protons according to Pauli's exclui^ion
principle. The shell model successfully explained the ground state
spins and parities, binding energies of nuclei^ islands of
isomerism etc. While the shell model succeeded in explaining the
properies of magic and neighbouring nuclei, it failed sometimes
badly in explaining the properties of most other nuclei, specially
those far removed from closed shells.

One of the more important systematic trends found in nuclear

energy levels was the observation that the first excited state of
most even-even nuclei is a 2 statec The exceptions are usually
closed shell nuclei. In some nuclei, a triplet of 0 , 2 and 4
states is seen at twice the energy of the first 2**" state. In
some other nuclei, the second excited level is a 4 state, at an
energy '^3.33 times the energy of the first 2 state. In latter
nuclei the whole band of 0 , 4 , 6 , 8 , levels was seen.
Also it was found that the energy of the first excited state in
the latter group of nuclei was lower than this energy in the first
group of nuclei. These features are reminiscential of vibrational
and rotational levels in atomic moleculeso This information by
analogy leads to the idea that lowest excited levels in most even-
even nuclei are vibrational or rotational states. Related evidence
for vibrational and rotational states was also found in odd-A
nucleic From this combination of evidences a collective model of
the nucleus on selected hydrodynamical principles was developed.

Study of quadrupole moment of nuclei showed that this

moment deviated from shell model values. The quadrupole moment
was found to become larger away from closed shells, implying
deformation of the nucleus between closed shells These observat-
10)
ions led Rainwater in 1950 to the conclusion that a single odd
particle outside a closed shell could polarize the core. He in
fact showed that the single particle could have a lower energy if
its potential was well deformed. This suggestion thus indicated
for the first time that a nuclear system of a single particle (or
perhaps a group of particles) coupled to a core may achieve a
relative minimum energy configuration if the core is deformed from
spherical shape. A study of transition rates of E2 transitions
between the first excited 2 state and the ground state in case of
even-even rare earth nuclei showed that these transitions were
enhanced by about two orders of magnitude, over the single particle
values. This enhancement was attributed to the cooperative nature
of these transitions. It was also found that these enhanced
transitions occured exactly in a region where the largest quadrupole
moments in odd-A nuclei had been observed, indicating a common
origin of both phenomena. The implications of these empirical
observations were considered in detail from a theoretical point of
"11 )
view by A. Bohr % and led to the formulation of the collective
model. This model was worked out in detail by A. Bohr and extended
and generalized principally by Bohr and Mottelson and various
12-14)
coauthors in a series of papers. '
The unified (or collective) model proposed by Bohr and
Mottelson unifies the concept of the shell model and the liquid
drop model. The potential in which the nucleons move is non-
spherical and the nucleons are moving in this non-spherical
potential. The long range correlation of the shell model
description are replaced by the assumption of a permanently
deformed potential. The nucleus is now considered as an
incompressible liquid drop with a sharp surface and the nuclear
potential is described in terms of the radius vector specifying
the nuclear surface. The nucleus is taken to be capable of
performing small amplitude oscillations about its equilibrium shape.
For an axially symmetric deformed nucleus, its rotation about an
axis perpendicular to the symmetry axis produces a rotational
spectrum whereas the vibrations along the symmetry axis preserve
axial symmetry and are called ^ -vibrations. The virbrations
along the perpendicular axis produce asymmetry in the nucleus and
are called gamma vibrations.

In the early development of a collective model, all nuclei

were broadly classified into two categories : spherical and
permanently deformed. The spherical nuclei had a harmonic vibrator
energy levels; while in deformed nuclei the low energy modes were
rotations and small amplitude vibrations about the deformed shape.
The experimental data accumulated during the sixties and early
seventies revealed that v;hile there do exist many well deformed
nuclei with rotational spectra, the simple vibrational picture is
 7

not a realistic one. The measiorement of quadrupole moments of

excited states of nuclei, showed that even the first excited 2
states of most of the so called spherical nuclei (eog. Sn and Te
isotopes) are appreciably deformed, '' Also examination of the
level structure of many of the vibrational nuclei upto an
excitation of about 5 MeV reveals existence of well defined
rotation-like bands just as in permanently deformed nuclei.

Although these experimental findings question the concept

of a spherical nucleus making small amplitude harmonic vibrations
about its spherical shape, yet the concept of a nucleus being
spherical in its ground state is a valid one. If the potential
energy for deformation from this shape goes up steeply the nucleus
is stiff, while if the potential energy curve against deformation
is very flat, the nucleus is soft and may contain many modes of
deformation. Nuclei of the latter type are called transitional and
occur in regions where either permanent deformation or stiff
sphericity is about to set in. Study of transitional nuclei is
important from the point of view of nuclear structure as these
nuclei provide a proving ground for nuclear structure models and a
challenge for nuclear theory.

In the Bohr-Mottelson model the rotation vibration motions

are not coupled. For well deformed nuclei or nearly spherical
nuclei this description holds good approximately. The deviations
 8

from the adiabatic assumption can be treated by perturbation theory.

In softer nuclei such an approach is not appropriate. Faessler
and Greiner ' developed a the complete rotation-vibration
interaction modelc They obtained systematic solutions of the
dynamical model with B - and V- vibrations for an axially
symmetric coreo This work brought out the great importance of
the rotation-vibration interaction in atomic nuclei.

Various nuclear models which we have surveyed so far, took

the nucleus to be deformed, but having an axis of symmetry. In
1Q21)
1958, Davydov and his coworkers'^ '' starting with Bohr's
collective Hamiltonian investigated triaxial statically deformed
nuclei with great success. This model successfully explained
many E2 transition probabilities and deviations from the energy
spectra were also explained, Faessler and Greiner " ' in their
work also established the equivalence of their model for the
groiond state and gamma bands with the asymmetric rotor model of
Davydov and Filippov, ^

A study of transition probabilities of gamma rays

deexciting nuclear levels is very important in the elucidation and
understanding of nuclear structure, A comparison of experimentally
determined gamma ray transition probabilities between nuclear
states with the theoretical predictions of nuclear models is one
of the most sensitive tools available to check, the validity of
 9

a nuclear model. The excitation energies of nuclear levels with

given spin and parity assignments are usually much better
reproduced by theoretical calculations than absolute gamma ray
transition probabilities. In the case of weak transitions
transitions experimental data are normally available in the form
of branching ratios, A comparison of theoretical branching ratios
with experimental values offers a still more stringe t test of a
theory as it begins to test the validity of predictions of rather
small components of wave functions.

Low-lying levels of deformed even-even nuclei have been

successfully predicited by several phenomenological nuclear
models,11 12 19 20)
/ Assuming the nucleus to be triaxially deformed,
19)
Davydov and Filippov, "" derived expressions for the reduced E2
transition probabilities from the first excited 2"*" state to the 0*
ground state, and the second 2'*' excited state to the first 2
excited state, by taking into account the interaction of rotation
22)
with gamma vibration, McGowan and Stelson ' compared the
experimental B(E2) values with the values calculated using Davydov-
Filippov asymmetric rotor model and found the agreement to be good,
23)
With more data becoming available, DeBoer et al, -^^ found the
survey of the
agreement available
to be data for the
rather limited. gammaVan
In 1950, rayPatter
branching of second
-^ made a
2 level in over fifty even-even nuclei with A > 30, This data
together with the data for E2/M1 mixing ratios of 2 ^2
 10

transitions, the Coulomb excitation cross-section for the

excitation of the second 2 level in some nuclei was used to
evaluate the ratios of reduced E2 transition probabilities. These
ratios were compared with the predictions of various theories.
The comparison indicated that the most successful theory for
predicting such ratios was the asymmetric rotor model of Davydov
and Filippove The most striking success of the theory was the
prediction of the ratio B(E2; 2 * ^ O'*")/B(E2; 2** o"*") as a
function of the ratio Ep+/E_+ However, the branching ratio
B(E2; 2* > Z^/O"^) remained unexplained. The ratio B(E2; 2*> o"*")/
B(E2; 2 > 0 ) according to Davydov Model was plotted alongwith
experimental values against Ep+/E-+ by Tamura and Udgawa, -^^ The
agreement was found to be very good although it became poorer in
the extreme vibrational region in the sense that the Davydov-
Filippov model did not explain the big fluctuations in the
experimental values. However, for the ratio B ( E 2 ; 2 1 2 )/
B(E2; 2 > 0 ) the agreement was pretty good. The poorer
agreement mentioned above had been improved in the conventional
theory of Tamura and Udgawa,25)
-^' Such a result appeared to be
quite natural because in both models the nucleus was considered to
have a stable shape with non-vanishing >(=& ) and Y =0.

It should however, still be emphasized that the basic ideas

of the two models were not the same, because in the DF model the
nuclear shape was considered to be fixed, whereas in the
 11

conventional theory, the nucleus was allowed to chiuige its shapeo

The difference becomes more apparent in the vibrational region,
21)
Davydov and Chaban ' investigated the coupling between the
rotational and vibrational motions due to centrifugal forces and
took into account only B - vibrations and thus assumed that the
nucleus is rigid with respect to a change in the equilibrium value
of the parameter Y , which meausres the deviation of the nuclear
shape from axial symmetry. The 0 level which could not be
accounted for on the D,F. model, now appeared alongwlth other
members of the beta band. Later Davydov and Rostovsky, ' revised
the previous model by considering the nuclear shape to be changing
as it passes into an excited state. A change in nuclear shape in
excitations leads to a coupling of rotational motion with beta and
gamma vibrations.

The nuclear deformation parameter ^ and the non-axiality

parameter V which were dynamical variables in the Bohr-Mottelson
12)
model, have been assumed to be permanent to some degree by
Davydov and his associates. ^^ * ' Furthermore they assume
non-vanishing values for both the elongation parameter E> and the
asymmetry parameter 7 . Excitations of lower-energy levels
results from rotation of the whole structure. Gamma vibrations
have been described as the states of anomalous rotational band of
non-axial rotor. The asymruetric rotor model (ARM) is capable of
making predictions of enei-gy levels, B(E2) values etc for any
 12

nucleus from a knowledge of asymmetry parameter V For Y = 0

or 50 , the level structure is identical to that of Bohr-Mottelson
model. The asymmetric rotor model thus appears to provide a
somewhat more general description of the nucleus than other
collective models. The macroscopic point of view in high spin
collective states assuming asymmetric nuclear shape has been
applied by Turner and Kishimoto, ' Deviations from axial
symmetry take place when prolate-oblate energy difference is small
with respect to deformation* Asymmetric shape increases rapidly
with increasing spin. The phase transition of the rotation mode
from axially symmetric to asymmetric shape was found to occur
abruptly at I = 8, At V = 30, nuclear deformation is such that
moment of inertia about one axis is maximized at the expense of the
moment of inertia about the other two axeSo For high spin states,
when quantiam fluctuation effects are unimportant, the lowest
energy states are obtained by rotation of the nucleus about this
axis.

Recently Warke and Gunye, have studied the experimentally

observed high spin states and their electromagnetic properties in
some even-even nucleic Baranger and Kumar "^ in their pairing-
plus-quadrupole model attempted to explain the electromagnetic
properties of even-even nuclei. In this model the nuclear force
is taken to be the pairing force plus a quadrupole force responsible
for producing deformation* But this model failed to describe the
 13

30)
even-even realistic nuclei for wftak pairing forces. Kota '
tried to explain the low-lying spectra of some rare earth nuclei
in the frame-work of the pseudo SU(3) model. But no attempt was
31 )
attempt was made to explain high spin states, Sahu et al. '
considered a triaxial shape of the nucleus and the calculations
were performed in the frame work of Nilsson-BCS theory employing
the pairing-plus-quadrupole-quadrupole interaction of Kumar and
29)
Baranger.
32)
Tanabe and Tanabe proposed a general formalism for
describing microscopically the asymmetric and symmetric rotors in
both even and odd mass nuclei, Feessler et al33) ' applied the
particle number projected HFB theory to the asymmetric deformation.
But this theory did not take into accoimt all the components of the
angular momentum and the full D2 symmetry scheme, Toyama34)'
considered a collective Hamiltonian composed of vibrational energy,
rotational energy and the potential energy terms. Calculated
energies were with some exceptions in good agreement with
experimental values and relative B(E2) values were much improved in
comparison with corresponding values calculated from the Clebsch-
Gordon coefficients.
35 )
In 1978, Zawischa et al,-^-^' gave the view point that low-
lying levels are non-collective. This view point has been
contradicted in both the gamma and the beta vibrational bands and
 14

it has been established that ARM estimates are much closer to

experimental rates in the work of Gupta et al.

In these models, the nuclear shape was regarded as having

quadrupole deformation only, Todd-Baker. ' in his work included
hexadecapole shape components to the usual Davydov-Filippov
asymmetric rotor model and this extended model was applied to some
transitional nuclei. The E2 properties previously thought to be
anomalous were correctly predicted. Qualitatively it appears that
the inclusion of P - shape component having Z-axis as the symmetry
axis, has the effect of keeping the nucleus more prolate as V
increases and the symmetry axis for the quadrupole deformation
tends towards the y-axis.

The asymmetric rotor model of Davydov-Filippov has been

ZQ\
extended to odd mass nuclei by coupling a single nucleon to an
inert core of well stabilized asymmetric equilibrium shape.
Calculations for ^ Ir and ^Re indicated that it was very
difficult to distinguish between a symmetric and an asymmetric
rotor model when the is small,
39,40)
Meyer-ter-Vehn used the Davydov approximation which
fixed the collective wave function at its average values and
assumed a rigid triaxial shape. The use of a fixed shape affects
the odd-A solution at two points (i) energies and wave functions
of the core (ii) coupling of the odd-A nucleon to the corf. From
 15

the first point the spectrum of the rigid triaxial rotor,

reproduced the lowest excited states of even transitional nuclei
in the A 135 and A = 190 mass regions. In particular, it
accounted f6r the low-lying second 2 state which is characteristics
of triaxial shapes. On the other hand there are systematic
deviations which reflect the softness of these nuclei. One
specially observes an over-all compression of the experimental
spectra as compared to that of a rigid triaxial rotor. The second
point concerning the particle core coupling is more important
factor with respect to the energy level spectrum of odd-A nuclei,
because it determines the level order and at this point the
approximation of a fixed triaxial shape turns out to be well
supported by a comparison with experiment. The odd-A spectrum
changes drastically when going from prolate type (0 < V < 30)
to oblate type (30 < V < 60) shapes. Such a transition is
observed in the A = 190 mass region and is well described assuming
rigid triaxial shapes. In fact rather complex families of unique
parity states can be reproduced with fixed F) and V values
derived from neighbouring even nuclei. It was concluded that a
number of transitional nuclei were less soft than expected from
existing theoretical calculations of potential energy surface of
Kumar,^^^
/41)
Toki and Faessler ' extended the model of Meyer-ter-Vehn
 IG

by including the softness of the core due to centrifugal

stretching or the Coriolis-anti-pairing effects by generalizing
the variable variable moment of inertia modelo For large V
deformations (or strong rotation vibration coupling) the asymmetric
rotor description turns out to be the simpler one.

The Davydov-Filippov model is equivalent to gamma

vibrational model so far as B(E2) values are concerned, Yamazaki
42) 43-45)
et alo concluded from the experimental facts that the
deformed nuclei (even or odd) in the transitional region look more
like a gamma vibrational symmetric rotor rather than a rigid
triaxial rotor. Therefore, it is difficult to comment uniquely
on the triaxial shape of the nucleus even if it obeys Davydov-
Filippov discipline for B ( E 2 ) values. However, one can use the
triaxial rotor approximation without assuming the rigid triaxiality
as it results from the freezing of vibrations and the Davydov
Rostovsky ' '^ approximation is much more practical for large
values of asymmetry parameter The asymmetric rotor model
describes several features of transitional nuclei, yet a micro-
scopic understanding of this fact is still missing; and work in
this direction would be fruitful,

1,2 Transitional Nuclei :

The nuclei that span the region of transition from

 17

spherical to deformed nuclei or from deformed nuclei to spherical

nuclei or from prolate deformed to oblate deformed are called
transitional nuclei* These nuclei lie in a region of onset or
disappearance or change or nuclear deformationc These nuclei
span shape transition regions and provide rich testing ground for
various models of nuclear structure.

The first attempt to study these nuclei was made by A.Bohr '
12)
and Bohr and Mottelson . In their picture the nucleus is assumed
to be an incompressible charged fluid of constant density. Any.
point on the surface is given by a multipole expansion which for
quadrupole deformation is,

R = R 1.1
o
^

where R Q is the average radius, and Ypji ^^ second order

spherical harmonics, A crucial role is played by the five shape
variablescL^ and the average radius R^. Although originally the
Bohr and Mottelson description was mostly used for nuclei with
stable deformation of axial symmetry, it has been extended
subsequently to other situation either in a purely phenomenological
fashion by Gneuss and Greiner, '^ or in a more microscopic way. '
The transitional nuclei do not have well deformed equilibrium
shapes and so the dynamics of the deformation is very important
for a study of these nuclei.
 18

In the course of last few years an alternate description

of collective quadrupole states has been developedo In this
picture, instead of using shape variables boson variables are
employed, hence the name Interacting Boson Model (IBM) given to
this to this description* Boson description of collective nucleon
states is not new; in fact in the early development of the IBM,
much inspiration was taken from the vork of Janssen, Joles and
48)
Donau. ' However, the way in which the boson variables were
introduced and interpreted in the IBM is very different from the
way in which they are used in other boson descriptions. The work
49) 50)
of Arima et alo, Ostuka et al., paved the way for establishing
a connection between the IBM and the collective model of Bohr and
Mottelson^and investigated by several authors,51-53)
''

Another approach used to describe collective motion in

nuclei is the Boson Expansion Theory (BET) developed by Tamura and
54-59)
his co*-workers, ' It has been used in describing experimental
data of a number of collective even-even nuclei. Although BET is
successful in describing transitional nuclei, it becomes
inconvenient when describing well deformed nuclei.
29)
The pairing plus quadrupole model of Kumar and Baranger '
has also been quite successful in predicting many properties of the
transitional nuclei. However these calculations are highly involved
and contain a few adjustable parameters.
 19

In recent years there has been a revival of interest in

27 29 "52 "59 40^
the asymmetric rotor model. ' '^*'^ *^^* ' The reason for this
increase of attention is partly the expectation that it may provide
a reasonable phenomebological description of nuclei belonging to
the transition region.

The assumption of rigid triaxial shape with fixed shape

parameters B and V is considered an approximation to the
actual nuclear wave functions, but this approximation has been very
useful ' and is well supported by new data, most of them obtained
from heavy ion experiments during the last decade or so. They
19)
give new support to Davydov-Filippov model ' and indicate that a
number of transitional nuclei have triaxial shapes which are more
stable than expected from theoretical potential energy calculations
of Kumar and Baranger. ^' The asymmetric rotor model has proved to
be highly successful in explaining various nuclear properties and
in describing the systematic trends of these properties, '
Although the asymmetric rotor model is a simple phenomenological
model, yet it leads to a better agreement with experimental values
much better than the IBM as shown in the case of Sm nuckei. ' It
was therefore decided to study chains of even Ru, Pd nuclei, even
Os nuclei and Sm nuclei. All these nuclei span/encompass
all shapes ioe. spherical, transitional and deformed. They have
been subject of several investigations both experimentally as well
as theoretically end it was thought worthwhile to see how the
 20

predictions of the simple phenomenological ARM compared with

various other models as well as experimental datac

This thesis has been divided into 8 Chapters In the

second chapter we review various experimental techniques of
determining gamma ray transition probabilities. Chapter Illi-.i
deals with collective nuclear models having axial symmetry
Chapter IV deals with concept of an asymmetric rotor model with a
special emphasis on Davydov-Filippov model. Chapters V-VII deal
1 Zifi 1 Zift
with st\
with studies of Ru and Pd nuclei, Sm and Sm nuclei and
18^-192,
"Os nucleic In Chapter VIII are given conclusions based on
this workc
 21

REFERENCES

1. C.F. Von Weizsacker, 2. Physik 96 (1933) 431.

2o N. Bohr, Nature 137 (1936) 344.
3. G. Breit and E.P. Wigner, Phys. Rev* 49 (1939) 519.
4 No Bohr and J.A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. ^ (1939) 426.
5. M.G. Mayer, Phys. Rev. 74 (1948)235; 75 (1949) 1969.
6o E, Feenberg, Phys. Rev. 7^ (1949) 320.
7. L.W, Nordheim, Phys. Rev. 7^ (1949) 1894.
8c 0. Haxel, J.H.D. Jensen and H.E. Sue^, Phys. Rev. 7^ (1949)
1766; S. Physik 1_28 (1950) 295.
9o M.G. Mayer and J.H.Do Jensen, Elementary Theory of Nuclear
Shell Structure (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1955).
10. J. Rainwater, Phys, Rev. 79 (1950) 432.
11. A. Bohr, Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Seleskab. Mat. Fys. Medd.
26 (1952) No. 14.
12. A. Bohr and B.R. Mottelson, Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab.
Mat. Fys. Medd. 27 (1953) No. 16.
13. S.G. Nilsson, Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab. Mat. Fys. Medd.
29 (1955) No. 16.
14. B.R. Mottelson and S.G. Nilsson, Kgl. Danske Videnskab
Selskab. Mat. Fys. Skr. 1_ (1959) No. 8.
15o J, de Boer and J. Eichler, Adv. Nucl, Phys. 1_ (1968) 1.
16. A, Faessler and W. Greiner, 2. Physik 168 (1962) 425.
 22

17. A. Faessler and Vf Greiner, 2, Physik 177 (1964) 190.

18o A. Faessler, Wo Greiner and R.K, Sheline, Nucl. Phys, 80
(1965) 417.
19. A.S. Davydov and G.F, Filippov, Nucl. Phys. 8 (1958) 237.
20o A.S. Davydov and V.S. Rostovsky, Nucl. Phys, ^2. (1959) 58.
21. A.S. Davydov and AiA, Chaban, Nucl, Phys, 20 (i960) 499.
22o F.K. McGowan and P.H. Stelson, Phys, Rev. 122 (I96l) 1274.
23. J. De Boer, G, Goldring and H, Winkler, Phys, Rev, 134B
(1964) 1032.
24o D.M. Van Patter, Nucl, Phys, 14 (1959) 42,
25. T, Tamura and T, Udgawa, Nucl, Phys, 16 (i960) 460,
26o A.S. Davydov and V.S. Rostovsky, Nucl. Phys. 60 (1964) 529.
27. R.J. Turner and T. Kishimoto, Nucl, Phys. A217 (1973) 317.
28. C.S, Warke and M.R. Gunye, Phys. Rev. C12 (1975) 1647.
29. M. Baranger and K. Kumar, Nucl. Phys, 62 (1965) 113; A22
(1967) 608; A110 (1968) 490; A122 (1968) 241, 273.
30. V.K.B. Kota, Phys, Rev. C19 (1979) 521.
31. R. Sahu, M. Satpathy, A. Ansari and L. Satpathy, Phys. Rev,
C19 (1979) 511.
32. K, Tanabe and K. Sugwara Tanabe, Phys. Rev. Cl4 (1976) 1163.
33. A. Faessler, K.R. Sandhya Devi, F. Orimnev, K.W. Schmid and
R.R. Hilton, Nucl. Phys, A256 (1976) 106.
34. M, Toyama, Proo. Theo. Phys. 58 (1977) 1368; 60 (1978) 1002,
35. D. Zawischa, J. Speth and D, Pal, Nucl, Phys, A311 (1978)4^5,
 23

35, K.K, Gupta, S.K. Bhardwaj and D.K. Gupta, Nuovo Cimento
^8B (1980) 101; Ind. J. Pure Appl. Phys. 20 (1982) 63; J
Phys, Soc, Japan 49 (1980) 4
37 F. Todd. Baker, Nucl, Phys. A331 (1979) 39o
38. K.T. Hetcht and G.R. Satchler, Nucl. Phys. ^ (1962) 286.
39o J Meyer-ter-Vehn, F.S. Stephens, and R.M. Diamond, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 32 (1974) 1383c
40. J. Meyer-ter-Vehn, Nucl. Phys. A249 (1975) 111, 141.
41. H Toki and A. Faessler, 2. Physik A27b (1976) 35.
42. T. Yamazaki, H. Nakayama, T. Nuraao and T.A. Shibate, J.
Phys. Socc Japan 44 (1978).
43<) Tc Yamazaki, in Proc. Intern. Conf. on Nuclear Collectivity
ed. by Y. Shida (Institue of Nuclear Study, University of
Tokoyo, 1976) 480p.
44. T. Yamazaki, Nucl. Phys. 49 (1964) 1.
45o T. Yamazaki, K. Nishiyama and D.L. Hendrie, Nucl. Phys,
A209 (1973) 153.
46. G Gneuss and W Greiner, Nucl. Phys. A171 (1971) 449.
47 K Kumar, Nucl. Phys, A231 (1974) 189,
48. D. Janssen, R.V. Jolos and F. Donau, Nucl, Phys, A224 (1974)
93o
49. A, Arima, T. Otsuka, F. lachello and I, Talmi, Phys, Lett,
66B (1977) 205.
 24

50, T Otsiika, A. Arima, F lachello and I, Talmi, Phys. Lett,

76B (1978) 139.
T. Otsuke, A, Arima and F, lachello, Nucl. PhySc A309
(1978) 1o
51. A.E.L. Die-perink and 0. Scholten, Nucl. Phys. A346 (1980)
125.
0

52o D.H. Feng, R. Glmore and S.R. Deans, Phys. Rev. 02^ (1981)
1254.
53. A. Bohr and B.R. Mottelson, Physlca Scripta 22 (1980) 468.
54o T. Kishimoto and To Tamura, Nucl, Phys, A192 (1972) 246;
A270 (1976) 317c
55o T, Tamura, K.J. Weeks and T. Kishimoto, Phys, Rev, C20
(1979) 307.
56c K,J Weeks, and T. Tamura, Phys, Rev, 02^ (1980) 888; Phys,
Rev. Lett. 49 (1980) 533; Phys. Rev, C22 (1980) 1323.
57. K.J. Weeks, T. Tamura, T, Udgawa. and F.J.W, Hohe, Phys,
Rev, C24 (1981) 703.
58. K.J. Weeks, T. Tamura and T, Kishmoto, Nucl. Phys. A347
(1980) 359,
59, T. Tamura, in Dynamics of Nuclear Collective Motion, Proc,
1982 INS Symposium edited by K, Ogawa and K. Tanabe
(Institute for Nuclear Study, Tokyo, 1982) p. 400.
60, V.P. Varshney, K.K. Gupta, A.K, Chaubey and D.K. Gupta,
Cand. J, Phys. 60 (1982) l46l.
 25

61. K.K, Gupta, V.P. Varshney and D.K. Gupta, PhySc Rev.
C26 (1982) 685.