format: text

text:
# UVES Be observations of early–G dwarfs in old clusters Based on observations collected at European Southern Observatory, Chile (65.L-0427). Part of the data were obtained as part of an ESO Service Mode run.

## 1 Introduction

The comparison between the chemical composition of meteorites, assumed to be representative of the primordial solar cloud, and the Sun shows that lithium is 140 times underabundant in the solar photosphere (Anders & Grevesse grev (1989)). This result cannot be explained as due to the action of convection only since, according to standard stellar models, the convective zone of solar type stars on the main sequence (MS) does not reach deep enough layers to enable lithium destruction (e.g., Pinsonneault pins97 (1997)). Besides Li depletion in the Sun, several pieces of observational evidence have been found indicating that, in contrast to standard models, late F/early G–type stars do deplete Li while on the MS (e.g., Jeffries jef00 (2000), Pasquini pas00 (2000) and references therein), witnessing the action of an additional process that can transport material from the surface to the stellar interior. Whereas several models have been developed, which take into account a more complex physics, including mass loss, diffusion, slow mixing driven by rotation or gravity waves (Swenson & Faulkner faulk (1992), Chaboyer et al. chab (1995), Deliyannis & Pinsonneault dp97 (1997), Montalbán & Schatzman ms00 (2000)), these models are still very poorly constrained; in particular, the question remains how deep in the stellar interior the mixing extends.

Since beryllium burns at temperatures $`10^6`$ K higher than Li (Li and Be are destroyed by proton capture at the temperatures of 2.5 and 3.5 $`\times 10^6`$ K, respectively) the simultaneous determination of Li and Be abundances in the same star traces stellar mixing to different depths, thus providing stringent observational constraints on model predictions. Whereas until recently it was commonly accepted that the Sun had a Be abundance a factor of about two lower than meteoritic, Balachandran & Bell (bala (1998)) carried out a revised analysis of the solar spectrum in the near–UV and found a solar Be abundance $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be)$`{}_{}{}^{}=1.40`$, thus comparable with the meteoritic value $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be)$`=1.42`$ (Anders & Grevesse grev (1989)). They concluded that Be is undepleted in the solar photosphere and suggested that mixing in the solar interior is shallower than previously thought. The result of Balachandran & Bell however is still controversial (e.g., King et al. king (1997)); in particular, the finding of little or no Be depletion in the Sun cannot be regarded as a general conclusion, since it relies on absolute abundance measurements, which are hampered by large uncertainties. Furthermore, we do not know whether and to what extent our Sun is representative of the whole population of stars with similar mass and evolutionary status. Finally, according to most of the proposed models, mixing depends on the whole evolutionary history of a star: hence, knowledge of the Be abundance for only one star at the age of the Sun does not allow discrimination between different models, since stars with different parameter evolution (e.g. rotation) may undergo different amounts of mixing. Beryllium measurements in homogeneous samples of stars, such as stellar clusters, with well determined evolutionary status, chemical composition, and age, are thus crucial. In addition, since most models predict significant Be variations on long timescales ($`>1`$ Gyr), a meaningful comparison between model predictions and observations should include old stars.

The Be feature that is best observed, the Be ii resonance doublet ($`\lambda =3130.420`$ Å and $`\lambda =3131.064`$ Å), lies close to the atmospheric UV cutoff; observations of Be are thus very challenging and have so far been limited to the brightest stars observable in the field (e.g., Primas et al. pri01 (2001)) and in the close-by Hyades and Ursa Major clusters (Boesgaard & Budge boe89 (1989), García López et al. gar95 (1995), Boesgaard & King bk (2002)).

Thanks to the superior near-UV capabilities of UVES on VLT Kueyen (Dekker et al. dek (2000)), we were able to acquire for the first time high resolution spectra of the Be region of 14th magnitude G dwarfs in old clusters. In the present paper we report the results concerning Li and Be, while an abundance analysis including heavy elements will be presented in a forthcoming paper.

## 2 Observations

Our sample includes five members of the solar age M 67 cluster (4.5 Gyr), three members of the 1.7 Gyr old IC 4651, the solar–analog $`\alpha `$ Cen A, and one member of the young (50 Myr) cluster IC 2391. This star has just arrived on the zero age main sequence and it is undepleted in Li (Randich et al. R01 (2001)); under the fully reasonable assumption that it is also undepleted in Be, it can be used to set a zero point to our abundance scale and it may provide an indication of the initial Be abundance. No known binaries are included in our sample. The observations were carried out using UVES on VLT UT2 (Kueyen). M 67 members and $`\alpha `$ Cen A were observed in Visitor Mode in April 2000; the young cluster member was also observed in Visitor Mode in Feb. 2001, as part of a different program; finally, the three targets in IC 4651 were instead observed in Service Mode during March 2000. All the stars were observed using the same set-up of UVES; namely, UVES was operated in Dichroic Mode using Cross Dispersers #1 and #3 in the Blue and Red arms, respectively. The Blue arm is equipped with a EEV 2048$`\times `$4102 CCD, while the Red arm is equipped with a mosaic of two CCDs made by a EEV 2048$`\times `$4102 CCD and a MIT-LL $`2048\times 4102`$ CCD. Such a combination allowed us to cover the spectral ranges from $`3115`$ to 3940 Å in the blue and from $``$ 4780 to 6810 Å in the red. The 15$`\mu m`$ pixels and the use of a 1 arcsec wide slit (projecting into 4 pixels) and CCD binning $`2\times 2`$ and $`1\times 1`$ in the blue and red, respectively, yielded resolving powers R$`40,000`$ and R$`45,000`$. The spectra were reduced using MIDAS and following the usual steps: bias and inter-order background were subtracted from both science and flat-field frames; the science frames were then optimally extracted, flat-fielded, and wavelength calibrated. Finally, the extracted orders were merged. The exposure times of cluster stars ranged between 40 min and 3 hrs; the sample stars were observed under different seeing conditions and variable airmasses, due to the long exposure times. The final S/N ratios per spectral bin are comprised between $`30`$ and 50 in the Be region and between $`100`$ and 200 in the Li region. A much higher S/N was achieved for $`\alpha `$ Cen A. The sample stars together with details on the observations are listed in Table 1. In Fig. 1 we show the comparison of the spectra of two M 67 members in the Be and Li spectral regions.

## 3 Abundance and Error Analysis

Effective temperatures were determined based on B–V colors using the same calibration employed in similar studies (Soderblom et al. sod93 (1993)). A surface gravity $`\mathrm{log}g=4.44`$ and microturbulence $`\xi =1.1`$ km/sec were assumed for all sample stars. Rotational velocities were retrieved from Pasquini et al. (in preparation) for M 67 and IC 4651 and from Randich et al. (R01 (2001)) for the young cluster member. Teff and v$`\mathrm{sin}i`$ values are listed in Cols. 2 and 3 of Table 2.

Li and Be abundances were derived in a consistent way using Kurucz model atmospheres and codes (ATLAS9, SYNTHE, and WIDTH9 – Kurucz kur (1993)). Model atmospheres were computed for the exact stellar parameters of each star, by interpolating in the ATLAS9 grid of models officially released by Kurucz on CD-ROMs (Kurucz kur (1993)). Solar abundances were taken from Anders & Grevesse (grev (1989)).

Be abundances were determined by spectrum synthesis using the line list extensively tested by Primas et al. (pri97 (1997)). This compilation has been constrained by using a large sample of stars, and after having run several tests on the possible presence of unidentified lines in the Be II doublet region. The main reason behind these tests (also carried out by similar studies) is the following: using the list of atomic and molecular lines derived from laboratory measurements only and model atmospheres currently available, it is very difficult to obtain a satisfactory fit of the $`\lambda `$3131.064 Å line with the solar photospheric abundance ($`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be)$`{}_{}{}^{}=1.15`$, as determined by Chmielewski et al. chm75 (1975)). Possible ways out include the introduction of one or more (still unidentified, hence “predicted”) lines or adjusting the oscillator strengths of neighbouring lines (cf. García López et al. gar95 (1995)). Though different, these two approaches give similar results, a satisfactory fit of the solar spectrum with the abundance $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be)$`{}_{}{}^{}=1.15`$. For our analysis, we adopted the line list from Primas et al. (pri97 (1997)), including a predicted Fe I line at 3131.043 Å , the strength of which had been constrained by using a large sample of stars of different Teff, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, and spanning three orders of magnitude in metallicity (cf. the original work for more details).

We started our analysis from fitting the Kurucz Solar Flux Atlas (Kurucz et al. kur84 (1984)): using a solar model with Teff$`{}_{}{}^{}=5777`$ K, $`\mathrm{log}g_{}=4.437`$, $`\xi _{}=1.1`$ km/sec, we obtained a solar Be abundance $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be)$`{}_{}{}^{}=1.11`$, in very good agreement with the value found by Chmielewski et al. (chm75 (1975)). To gain confidence on the robustness of our analytical method, we then fitted our own spectrum of the solar-analog $`\alpha `$ Cen A (Teff$`=5800`$ K, $`\mathrm{log}g=4.44`$, \[M/H\]=+0.1, cf. Primas et al. pri97 (1997)). We found $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be)$`{}_{}{}^{}=1.17`$, in good agreement with the Sun and with values derived from previous analyses (within the quoted uncertainties - cf. Primas et al. pri97 (1997), King et al. king (1997)). Then, we applied the same technique to all our sample stars, including also the member of the young cluster IC 2391. Examples of some spectrum synthesis fits are shown in Figs. 2–5, while all the Be (derived by demanding a satisfactory fit of both Be lines) and Li abundances are reported in Table 2, together with their respective uncertainties. For the records, using model atmospheres computed with the overshooting option switched off (NOVER) translates into a systematic difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) $`=0.05`$ dex for all stars.

Li abundances were derived from the measured equivalent widths of the Li i 6707.8 Å feature (see Table 2). Given the resolution of our spectra and the rotational velocity of the sample stars, the Li feature was not blended with the nearby Fe i 6707.44 Å line and, thus, we did not need to correct the measured Li EWs for the contribution of the latter. For completeness and consistency, Li abundances for stars from previous studies (namely, Jones et al. jon99 (1999) for M 67 and Randich et al. r00 (2000) for IC 4651) have also been re-computed from the EWs published in the original works. We note that new abundances are in very good agreement with old ones.

Errors in the derived abundances were computed from analyzing the dependence of Li and Be abundances to changes in the adopted stellar parameters. Uncertainties of $`\pm 100`$ K in Teff, 0.2 dex in $`\mathrm{log}`$ g, and 0.2 km/sec in $`\xi `$ were assumed. The final uncertainty listed in Table 2 include also the sensitivity of Be to the placement of the continuum (estimated to be on the order of $`\pm 3\%`$) and of Li to errors in the measured EWs. There may be extra sources of systematic and random errors. In the case of Be, one may want to take into account extra uncertainties encountered during spectrum synthesis. During our analysis we have established that including one “predicted” line (or adjusting the oscillator strengths of one or more lines) implies a systematic difference of $`0.05`$ dex for our sample stars here (as to say, without the predicted line, one has to increase the Be abundance by +0.05 dex in order to get a similar satisfactory fit). Another way is to run a synthesis including the entire Kurucz list of “predicted” (as opposed to “laboratory”) lines, in order to quantify the global effect on the continuum. Although related to the same problem, this may be considered a random source of error. We found it affects the continuum level by $`3\%`$, which corresponds to $`\pm 0.05`$ dex in beryllium. Another weak point to be aware of is the well known discrepancy between the solar photospheric Be ($`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be)$`{}_{}{}^{}=1.15`$) and the abundance measured in meteorites ($`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be)$`{}_{}{}^{}=1.42`$ determined by Anders & Grevesse grev (1989)). Though this may turn out to be only an apparent discrepancy (cf. Balachandran & Bell bala (1998), who determined a solar photospheric Be in very good agreement with the meteoritic value by including new continuum opacity sources), we decided not to enter the discussion which, as mentioned above, is still very much open, as also shown by Allende Prieto & Lambert (all (2000)) who find that there is no missing UV opacity.

In conclusion, based on the quality of our observations and on the fact that our main conclusions will be based on differential comparison between stars characterized by similar parameters, we believe that the relative error bars quoted in Table 2 are appropriate. In other words, thanks to our choice of targets of very similar nature and macroscopic parameters, we can safely compare the relative light element abundances of our sample stars without being affected by systematic effects. This implies that differences in Be abundances are better constrained than absolute abundances.

## 4 Results and discussion

### 4.1 Be and Li abundances

In Fig. 6 we show $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) vs. Teff for our sample stars. The Sun is also included in the figure. Figure 6 and Table 2 clearly show that all our sample stars have, within the errors, the same Be abundances: in particular, we find for the Sun exactly the same abundance as for the 50 Myr old IC 2391 member; stars in M 67 (with the possible exception of S988 that shows a somewhat lower abundance), IC 4651, and $`\alpha `$ Cen A also have a similar abundance as the Sun. We obtain an average abundance $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be)$`=1.08\pm 0.12`$ for M 67 and $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) $`=1.13\pm 0.03`$ for IC 4651. We stress that the finding of similar abundances is extremely robust since it is based both on direct comparison of the spectra and on a consistent analysis of stars with very similar macroscopic parameters.

As we have mentioned, the Be abundance that we derive for the Sun is in agreement with the value $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) $`=1.15`$ derived by Chmielewski et al. (chm75 (1975)); this value, as well the abundances of our sample stars, are about a factor of two lower than the meteoritic abundance $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) $`=1.42`$. For the three clusters we have derived similar, about solar, metallicity (see also Randich et al. R01 (2001)): given the $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) vs. \[Fe/H\] relationship (e.g., Boesgaard et al boe99 (1999)), this suggests a similar initial Be abundance. Two hypotheses can be proposed to explain the difference between the abundances that we have derived for our sample stars and the meteoritic Be abundance: a) All our sample stars, including the young cluster star, have undergone a very similar amount of Be depletion; b) The difference between our best fit Be abundances and the meteoritic value is simply due to different analytical methods adopted during the analyses. Under this hypothesis, none of our sample stars has undergone any Be depletion, implying that stars in this temperature range including the Sun, do not burn Be while on the MS. Hypothesis a) would mean that some Be burning occurs during the pre-main sequence (PMS) phases, in contradiction with all model predictions (e.g., Piau & Turck-Chieze pt01 (2001)) and inconsistently with the observational evidence of no PMS Li depletion for stars in this Teff range (e.g., Randich et al. R01 (2001) and references therein); in other words, the simultaneous Be depletion and Li non–depletion in the young star would be hardly explainable. For these reasons, we regard hypothesis a) as very unlikely. Hypothesis b) would instead be the proof of a shallow mixing process, i.e. a mechanism that is able to transport surface material down to the Li burning layer, but not deep enough to destroy Be.

In Fig. 7 we plot $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Li) vs. Teff for our sample stars and the stars studied by Jones et al. (jon99 (1999)) and Randich et al. (r00 (2000)). The present study confirms the star-to-star scatter in Li among M 67 members (Spite et al. spi87 (1987), García López et al. gar88 (1988), Pasquini et al. pas97 (1997), Jones et al. jon99 (1999)), indicating different amounts of Li depletion for stars with the same mass and chemical composition. In agreement with previous studies (Randich et al. r00 (2000)), stars in the younger IC 4651 cluster do not show any major dispersion, suggesting that the mechanism responsible for the dispersion observed in M 67 acts at relatively old ages.

### 4.2 Be vs. Li depletion and comparison with the models

As clearly pointed out by Deliyannis (deli00 (2000)), the $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) vs. $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Li) diagram is a very powerful tool to investigate the nature of stellar mixing and to discriminate between different models. It is worth emphasizing that in this diagram the shape of the relationship, i.e., the relative Li and Be abundances, rather than absolute abundances, is providing most of the information. In Fig. 8 we show $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) vs. $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Li) for our sample stars and the Sun; the best fit relationship between $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) and $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Li) proposed by Boesgaard et al. (boe01 (2001)) for field stars with $`6300`$ Teff $`5850`$ K is also shown in the figure.

Be surveys among field stars (e.g., Stephens et al. ste97 (1997), Boesgaard et al. boe01 (2001)) have reported the existence of a correlation between Li and Be depletion; this correlation was interpreted as the proof of the action of slow mixing driven by rotation; a similar result was found by Boesgaard & King (bk (2002)) for Hyades dwarfs warmer than 5850 K. At odds with the correlation found for field stars, and in contrast with the prediction of slow mixing induced by rotation (see e.g., Deliyannis deli00 (2000)), Fig. 8 does not show any clear evidence of correlated Li and Be depletion; stars that have suffered different amounts of Li destruction both in the same cluster and in different clusters, have, within the errors, the same Be content (see also Fig. 6). Our datapoints plotted in Fig. 8 do not follow the mean trend found for field stars with $`6300`$ Teff $`5850`$ K. This is not unexpected for the stars in our sample with Teff below 5850 K (namely, the Sun, alpha Cen A, and S969 in M 67), for which no correlation between Li and Be is indeed found for the Hyades. It is instead surprising that the warmest stars in our sample do not follow the same relationship as field stars. Most of the stars in M 67 and IC 4651 are only marginally in agreement with the relationship for field stars, with star S1256 in M 67 clearly showing much less Be depletion than expected; viceversa, the young cluster star has a Be abundance significantly below the expected value. If one changed the intercept of the curve to fit this star, all the other sample stars would then lie much above the relationship. We mention that different temperatures were reported in the literature for S1256, a couple of which are cooler than 5850 K. More in general, our temperature scale is different from that of Boesgaard et al. (boe01 (2001)) and thus other stars in our sample, besides $`\alpha `$ Cen A, the Sun, and S969, might fall outside the interval $`5850`$ Teff$`6300`$ K based on the calibration of Boesgaard et al. In order to further investigate this point, we re-determined the effective temperatures of field stars in the sample of Boesgaard et al. using our calibration. Whereas we do find differences as large as $`250`$ K, we do not find a systematic offset and the range 5850–6300 K of Boesgaard et al. reflects into an interval of 5810–6480 K in our scale. In other words, given the uncertainties in the temperature scales, the lower limit for the Li-Be correlation found for field stars cannot be defined in an absolute way. On the other hand, the discrepancy between the correlation found for field stars and the lack of correlation found for our sample stars cannot be explained as due to different temperature calibrations.

In the following, our results are compared with the predictions of various models.

Models including diffusion actually do not warrant a detailed discussion: as discussed by Deliyannis (deli00 (2000)) or by Stephens et al. (ste97 (1997)), diffusion implies simultaneous Li and Be depletion and thus does not fit the observed Be vs. Li diagram shown in Fig. 8. In Figs. 6 and 7, instead, we show a quantitative comparison with the predictions of models including slow mixing processes; more specifically, we plot different curves denoting theoretical predictions by models including slow rotationally induced mixing (retrieved from Deliyannis & Pinsonneault dp97 (1997)) and by models including gravity waves (kindly provided by J. Montalbán –see also Montalbán & Schatzman ms00 (2000)). Following the two hypothesis a) and b) discussed in the previous section, we show in panel a) of Fig. 6 model predictions with an initial Be abundance equal to the meteoritic value, as assumed in the original works presenting these models. In panel b) the curves are instead normalized to an initial abundance $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) $`=1.11`$ as derived by us for the young, Li-undepleted star in our sample; under the assumption that this star has not depleted any Be, its abundance is indicative of the initial Be abundance in our abundance scale.

Models including rotational mixing predict that some Be depletion has occurred already at 1.7 Gyr and that additional depletion should take place between 1.7 Gyr and the solar age. In addition, at a given age, they predict a difference in both $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Li) and $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) for stars with the same temperature, but different initial rotational velocities. The difference in Li abundance is much larger than the difference in Be abundance. In other words, according to these models, some dispersion in Be should be observed if cluster stars had different initial rotation rates. A larger dispersion in Li is predicted.

The absolute Be abundances of M 67 and IC 4651 members shown in panel a) are, within the errors, in fairly good agreement with the predictions by rotational mixing. However, as evidenced in Sect. 4.1, the young cluster member exhibits an abundance which is a factor $`2`$ below meteoritic. The Be content of this star indeed appears in agreement with the predicted Be abundance at an age between 1.7 and 4.5 Gyr, which is clearly inconsistent with the much younger age of the star. Panel b) has been made under the assumption that the Be abundance of the young star would represent the initial Be abundance; therefore, and by definition, this panel does not evidence any inconsistency for the young cluster member. On the contrary, the observed Be abundances of both M 67 and IC 4651 members are not fitted by the models including rotational mixing that predict larger depletion than observed. Only the warmest star in our sample, S988 in M 67, is marginally in agreement with model predictions. Independently from the initial absolute Be abundance, rotational mixing is not able to reproduce the relative Li and Be abundances of our sample stars. A difference in Be abundance somewhat larger than our errors is predicted between 1.7 and 4.5 Gyr: we do not find evidences for such a difference. Furthermore, between 6000 and 5900 K these models predict that a dispersion in $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Li) of $`0.6`$ dex should correspond to a dispersion in $`\mathrm{log}n`$(Be) of $`0.2`$ dex, which is almost a factor of two larger than our errors. Stars S1252 and S1256 in M 67 show 0.75 dex difference in Li, but have virtually the same Be abundance, in contrast with the predictions. Even without considering the derived abundances, this result is evidenced by the comparison of the spectra of the two stars in the Be and Li regions shown in Fig. 1.

Gravity waves induced mixing predicts no significant Be depletion at 1.7 Gyr and only a small amount of depletion ($`0.15`$ dex) for the coolest stars at the solar age. The predictions of gravity waves would be in contradiction with our results if hypothesis a) above is true and the sample stars have undergone some Be depletion; the curves showing the predictions of these models in panel a) indeed do not well fit the observed distribution. On the contrary, in panel b) models including waves provide the best fit to the observed Be vs. Teff diagram of our sample stars. Mixing driven by waves also seems to reproduce fairly well the Li vs. temperature distribution of IC 4651 stars, but is not able to reproduce the Li vs. temperature morphology of the older M 67 shown in Fig. 7. In particular, available models cannot explain the dispersion in Li observed in M 67. Rotating models including gravity waves are being developed (Montalbán & Schatzman ms00 (2000)); whereas, different rotation rates could provide an explanation for the dispersion in Li, preliminary qualitative analysis indicates that high rotation would result in lower predicted Li depletion thus not reproducing the lower envelope of M 67.

We finally mention that we have not taken into account in this discussion Li depletion due to mass loss. Models including mass loss (Swenson & Faulkner faulk (1992)) predict that Be depletion starts only when Li has been completely depleted and thus they would be qualitatively in agreement with our results. Mass loss, however, has been convincingly shown not to work when applied to Li data alone (Swenson & Faulkner faulk (1992)).

## 5 Conclusions

We have obtained the first Be measurements of late F/early–G dwarfs in old open clusters. The Be abundances of old cluster stars are compared with the abundance of a young Li-undepleted star and with the solar abundance: we find that all the sample stars share, within the errors the same Be abundance, irrespective of their age and Li abundance. This in turn suggests that these stars, including the Sun, do not undergo any Be depletion during the main sequence, unless the very unlikely hypothesis is accepted that they deplete Be, but do not deplete Li in the PMS phases. Our data are thus indicative of a shallow mixing process that extends deep enough in the stellar interior for Li burning to occur, but not deep enough to destroy Be. At variance with the results for field stars, we do not find any evidence of correlated Li and Be depletion, which would support shallow mixing driven by rotation. More in general, our observations and the comparison with various models show that the understanding of the mechanism regulating the boundary layers between the convective zone and the radiative core is still not satisfactory and that the problem of depletion of light elements during the MS phases of late F/early G–type stars, including our own Sun, needs further investigation on theoretical grounds. None of the models that we have discussed is able to simultaneously fit the observed Be vs. Teff and Li vs. Teff distributions of our sample stars and in particular their relative amounts of Li and Be depletion. Our sample stars cover a relatively small interval of effective temperatures; therefore we cannot extend our results/conclusions to warmer/cooler stars. Indeed, different mixing mechanisms may be at work in stars much warmer/cooler than the Sun, with much thinner/thicker convective zones. In particular, we note that the possibility that the mixing processes at work in F and G–type stars are different is not unrealistic since the transition between G- and F-type stars corresponds to the region in the HR diagram where several changes occur; namely, the surface convective zones gets thinner in F-type stars, possibly magnetic braking is not (or less) effective, and stars can retain high rotational velocities during their permanence on the main sequence. Most obviously, additional observations should carried out covering a larger temperature range.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Josefina Montalbán for sending us the prediction of models including gravity waves. This research was partially supported by MURST grants to SR and RP.


text:
# Level density and 𝛾-ray strength in 27,28Si

## 1 Introduction

The Oslo Cyclotron group has developed a method to extract first-generation (primary) $`\gamma `$-ray spectra at various initial excitation energies . From the set of primary spectra, nuclear level densities and $`\gamma `$-ray strength functions can be extracted . These two functions reveal essential nuclear structure information such as shell gaps, pair correlations, and thermal and electromagnetic properties. In the last couple of years, the Oslo group has demonstrated several fruitful applications of the method .

So far, the method has been tested on rare earth nuclei, having a rather uniform and high single-particle level density. These properties are expected to be important for the foundation of the method. The two crucial steps in the extraction procedure are: (i) the subtraction technique for obtaining the primary $`\gamma `$-ray spectra, and (ii) the Brink-Axel hypothesis telling that nuclear resonances with approximately equal properties can be built on all states. Thus, the most important requirements are that the spin and parity distributions should be similar for all excitation energy bins and that the nucleus should thermalize at each step within a given $`\gamma `$ cascade.

Although not finally validated, the method has been tested and found successful for deformed rare-earth nuclei  and even for the weakly deformed 148,149Sm nuclei . However, in cases where the statistical properties are less favourable, as for lighter nuclei and/or for nuclei in the vicinity of closed shells, the foundation of the method is more doubtful. Since both 27Si and 28Si of the present study are open-shell systems in the middle of the $`sd`$ shell, only the statistical question remains here.

From a statistical point of view it is important that for light nuclei having low level density one can expect a strong influence of Porter-Thomas fluctuations on $`\gamma `$-transition intensities of primary $`\gamma `$ spectra and hence, on extracted level densities and $`\gamma `$-ray strength functions. This means that the main assumptions of the Oslo method can fail, namely that the applicability of the Axel-Brink hypothesis can loose its meaning because of large $`\gamma `$-intensity fluctuations and insufficient averaging over nuclear levels due to a low level density. From this point of view it is interesting to establish the limit of the applicability of the Oslo method by investigating light nuclei.

In this work, we have tested the extraction procedure on the light 27Si and 28Si systems, applying the (3He,$`\alpha `$) pick-up reaction and the (3He,3He’) inelastic scattering reaction, respectively. Since both the level density and the $`\gamma `$-decay rates are known in these nuclei, a quantitative judgment of the applicability of the procedure is feasible. Section 2 describes the experimental methods and techniques, and in sections 3 and 4 the level density and $`\gamma `$-ray strength are discussed. Finally, concluding remarks are given in section 5.

## 2 Experimental method and techniques

The experiment was carried out at the Oslo Cyclotron Laboratory with a 45 MeV 3He beam. The self-supporting 28Si target was isotopically enriched to $`100\%`$ and had a thickness of 3 mg/cm2. The reactions employed in the extraction procedure were 28Si(3He,$`\alpha \gamma )^{27}`$Si and 28Si$`(^3`$He,3He’$`\gamma )^{28}`$Si.

The charged particles and $`\gamma `$ rays were recorded with the detector array CACTUS, which contains eight particle telescopes, 27 NaI $`\gamma `$-ray detectors and two additional Ge detectors monitoring the spin distribution and the selectivity of the reactions. Each telescope is placed at an angle of 45 relative to the beam axis, and comprises one Si front and one Si(Li) back detector with thicknesses of 140 and 3000 $`\mu `$m, respectively. The NaI $`\gamma `$-detector array surrounding the target and particle detectors has a resolution of $`6\%`$ at $`E_\gamma =1`$ MeV and a total efficiency of $`15\%`$.

In figures 1 and 2, the single and coincidence ejectile spectra are shown for the reactions 28Si$`(^3`$He,$`\alpha )^{27}`$Si and 28Si$`(^3`$He,3He’$`)^{28}`$Si, respectively. The ground state in 27Si is located at higher ejectile energy due to a positive $`Q`$ value of 3.40 MeV in the $`(^3`$He,$`\alpha )`$ reaction. In 27Si and 28Si, pronounced peak structures are seen up to 5 and 10 MeV excitation energy, respectively. The coincident spectra show a drop in yield at the proton binding energies $`B_p`$, since the residual nucleus with one proton less (aluminium) is then populated at low excitation energy with a corresponding low $`\gamma `$-ray multiplicity. Our extraction method is therefore only applicable up to the excitation energy of $`EB_p`$. The spin window of the present pick-up and elastic scattering reactions is concentrated at $`I24\mathrm{}`$.

In order to determine the true $`\gamma `$-energy distribution, the $`\gamma `$ spectra are corrected for the response of the NaI detectors with the unfolding procedure of . In addition, random coincidences are subtracted from the $`\gamma `$ spectra. The resulting unfolded NaI $`\gamma `$ spectra are shown in figure 3. The spectra reveal strong $`\gamma `$ lines, which are identified as transitions between low-lying states.

The set of unfolded $`\gamma `$ spectra are organized in a $`(E,E_\gamma )`$ matrix, where the initial excitation energies $`E`$ of 27Si and 28Si are determined by means of reaction kinematics, utilizing the energy of the ejectile. This matrix comprises the $`\gamma `$-energy distribution of the total $`\gamma `$ cascade. The primary-$`\gamma `$ matrix can now be found according to the subtraction technique of .

As indicated in the introduction, the primary $`\gamma `$-ray procedure is based on the assumption that the decay properties of the particular reaction-selected distribution of states within each energy bin are independent on whether the respective ensembles of states are directly populated through the nuclear reaction or by $`\gamma `$ decay from higher-lying states. In the present case, the $`\gamma `$-ray multiplicity is low and reaches $`M_\gamma 2`$ around 10 MeV excitation energy. Thus, generally less than half of the counts in the total $`\gamma `$ spectra have to be subtracted in the procedure, giving quite reliable primary $`\gamma `$-ray spectra. This is demonstrated in figure 4, where we compare our results to known $`\gamma `$-decay branches from various excitation-energy regions . Here, in the reconstruction of primary $`\gamma `$ spectra from known $`\gamma `$ transitions, we have assumed equal population of the initial levels within each energy bin. Taking into account that probably not all levels and branchings are known, the agreement is very satisfactory. It should be noted that possible Porter-Thomas fluctuations will reveal themselves in exactly the same way in the literature data and the extracted primary $`\gamma `$ spectra. Thus, agreement between the two spectra of figure 4 should not be surprising from a statistical point of view.

The idea is now to find two functions, the level density $`\rho (E)`$ and the $`\gamma `$-energy-dependent function $`𝒯(E_\gamma )`$, that, multiplied with each other, reproduce the set of primary $`\gamma `$-ray spectra. The $`𝒯(E_\gamma )`$ function is identified as the so-called $`\gamma `$-ray transmission coefficient. According to the Brink-Axel hypothesis , the primary $`\gamma `$-ray spectra can be factorized by

$$P(E,E_\gamma )\rho (EE_\gamma )𝒯(E_\gamma ),$$
(1)
where $`P(E,E_\gamma )`$ is fitted to the primary $`\gamma `$-ray matrix by a least $`\chi ^2`$ fit . In the factorization procedure, we use primary spectra from the initial excitation-energy regions of $`E=3.6`$–7.6 MeV and $`E=4.2`$–12.1 MeV for 27Si and 28Si, respectively. The corresponding $`\gamma `$-energy regions were chosen to be $`E_\gamma =1.1`$–7.6 MeV and $`E_\gamma =2.2`$–12.1 MeV.

In figure 5, the best fits (solid lines) to the experimental $`P`$ are shown for the 27Si and 28Si nuclei. The experimental spectra exhibit strong peak structures that are in good correlation in spite of the fact that they have been obtained at different excitation energies. The correlation indicates that the peak structures are mainly due to the $`\gamma `$-ray transmission coefficient $`𝒯(E_\gamma )`$ which is assumed to be independent of the excitation energies of initial and final states. This is also supported by the fact that the highly structured experimental spectra are seen to be fairly well described by the factorization in equation (1). The expected Porter-Thomas fluctuations can be estimated from the deviations of the experimental points from the solid line in figure 5, which demonstrate that the fluctuations are of minor importance for the extracted level densities and $`\gamma `$-ray transmission coefficients.

In our extraction procedure, we assume that the $`\gamma `$-ray transmission coefficient $`𝒯(E_\gamma )`$ is independent of the excitation energy (or temperature). Although no strict violation of this assumption has been determined experimentally, theoretical predictions show that $`𝒯(E_\gamma )`$ may depend on the thermal properties of the final state. In order to estimate the influence of such effects, we have applied the temperature dependent model of Kadmenskiĭ, Markushev and Furman  for electric dipole transitions. The model describes a $`\gamma `$-ray strength function based on the low energy tail of the giant electric dipole resonance (GEDR), where we use GEDR parameters from . To evaluate the temperature at a certain excitation energy, we use $`T=\sqrt{U/a}`$, where $`U`$ and $`a`$ are the intrinsic excitation energy and the level density parameter, respectively. These parameters are determined according to von Egidy et al. . In our experiment, we measure $`\gamma `$ spectra from a certain initial excitation energy $`E`$, and the temperature $`T`$ is determined by the excitation energy of the final state $`EE_\gamma `$. Since we use spectra from several $`E`$ for a given $`E_\gamma `$, also the final excitation energy will change accordingly, giving different temperatures for different $`\gamma `$ energies. For the tests, we used the KMF model including this variation in temperature with $`\gamma `$ energies, and compared with a calculation where the temperature is kept constant. Here, we find for 28Si that the $`𝒯_{\mathrm{KMF}}(E_\gamma )`$ values deviate within 20 % for $`E_\gamma >3`$ MeV. However, for lower $`E_\gamma `$ the $`𝒯_{\mathrm{KMF}}(E_\gamma )`$ value with variable temperature increases and gains a factor of two at $`E_\gamma =2`$ MeV compared to the value of $`𝒯_{\mathrm{KMF}}(E_\gamma )`$ taken at a constant temperature. The varying temperature is associated with a standard deviation of $`0.4`$ MeV, which will reduced this difference somewhat. Since the predicted temperature dependence is highly uncertain, if existing at all in real silicon nuclei, we omit to include this uncertainty in the experimental error bars.

The multiplicative functions $`\rho (E)`$ and $`𝒯(E_\gamma )`$ of equation (1) are not uniquely determined. Actually, one may construct an infinite number of other functions , which give identical fits to the data of figure 5 by

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(EE_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`A\mathrm{exp}[\alpha (EE_\gamma )]\rho (EE_\gamma ),`$ (2)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}(E_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`B\mathrm{exp}(\alpha E_\gamma )𝒯(E_\gamma ).`$ (3)
Consequently, neither the slope nor the absolute value of the two functions can be obtained through the fitting procedure. Thus, the free parameters $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`\alpha `$ have to be determined from other information to give the best physical solution.

## 3 Level density

The 27Si and 28Si nuclei have been thoroughly studied during the last decades, and the level schemes are probably fairly complete up to several MeV excitation energy. By smoothing the known level density taken from the database of  with the experimental energy resolution, we can adjust the parameters $`A`$ and $`\alpha `$ of our experimental $`\rho `$ to fit the level density to the number of known levels. The adjustments were performed at $`E=0.9`$ and 5.0 MeV in 27Si and at $`E=1.7`$ and 7.0 MeV in 28Si. These anchor points are well determined and separated in excitation energy, however, also other data points could as well be used.

Figure 6 compares cumulated number of levels based on our data (data points) and known levels (histogram) taken from . The overall agreement is gratifying777Apparently, our data seem to be wrong adjusted to the anchor point at $`E=1.7`$ MeV in 28Si, but the plot shows cumulated numbers of levels and not level densities.. Local differences can be caused by violation of the Axel-Brink hypotheses for light nuclei, where low level density and large fluctuations of $`\gamma `$ intensity is observed. For example, in 28Si, the level density around the ground state is strongly underestimated in the experiment, because very few transitions decay directly to the $`I^\pi =0^+`$ ground state. This property is less pronounced in 27Si, having a ground state assignment of $`I^\pi =5/2^+`$. Since these nuclei have been well studied, we are not able to extract much more information on the level density than what is already known. However, our data give a small indication that not all levels in 28Si have yet been observed above 9 MeV excitation energy.

Very few explicit calculations of level densities exist. This would be needed, since a simple Fermi-gas approximation based on the level-density parameter $`a`$ and the pairing-gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ neglects residual interactions. In the calculations of Ormand , the level densities of 24Mg and 32S were studied in a Monte-Carlo Shell-Model approach within the $`sd`$ shell. It is interesting that the level density in 24Mg behaves very much like the nuclei studied here. The fact that there are only one hundred levels per MeV at excitation energies of 8–12 MeV has implications. It indicates that if specific states are selected by some reaction, e.g., $`\alpha `$-cluster states with large parentage of $`\pi ^2\nu ^2`$ configurations, the number of states of this kind necessarily must be significantly lower. However, at this stage, it is not possible to give quantitative statements of the number of, e.g., $`\alpha `$-cluster states in this region.

In general, the most successful way to create additional states in atomic nuclei is to break up $`J=0`$ nucleon Cooper pairs. Each broken pair increases the level density by a factor of 10-20, which is much higher than obtained from other modes of excitation as, e.g., rotation or vibration. Recently , a thermodynamic model was developed which could describe level densities for mid-shell nuclei in the mass regions $`A=58`$, 106, 162, and 234. The model is based on the canonical ensemble theory, where equilibrium is obtained at a certain given temperature $`T`$.

The basic idea of the model  is the assumption of a reservoir of proton and neutron pairs. The pairs may be broken such that unpaired nucleons are thermally scattered into an infinite, equidistant, doubly-degenerated single-particle level scheme. In addition, rotational and vibrational modes may be thermally excited. The total partition function is written as a product of proton $`(Z_\pi )`$, neutron $`(Z_\nu )`$, rotation $`(Z_{\mathrm{rot}})`$, and vibration $`(Z_{\mathrm{vib}})`$ partition functions. Then, from the Helmholtz free energy

$$F(T)=T\mathrm{ln}\left(Z_\pi Z_\nu Z_{\mathrm{rot}}Z_{\mathrm{vib}}\right),$$
(4)
thermodynamical quantities as entropy, average excitation energy, and heat capacity can be calculated as

$`S(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{T}}\right)_V`$ (5)
$`E(T)`$ $`=`$ $`F+ST`$ (6)
$`C_V(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{T}}\right)_V,`$ (7)
where the Boltzmann constant is set to unity $`(k_B=1)`$ and the temperature $`T`$ is measured in MeV. The level density is calculated applying the saddle-point approximation

$$\rho (E)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(S)}{T\sqrt{2\pi C_V}}.$$
(8)
The energy spacing between the single-particle orbitals $`\epsilon `$ is the most critical parameter of the model. In order to determine $`\epsilon `$, we investigate the well-studied 26Al and 27Al isotopes, where the level density is presumably known up to high excitation energy from the counting of experimentally observed levels . Figure 7 shows these experimental data together with a level-density point evaluated for 28Al  from the average neutron-resonance spacing  at the neutron binding energy $`B_n`$. The slopes of the level densities are well reproduced with $`\epsilon =2.0`$ MeV, which is consistent with the energy gaps in the Nilsson single-particle level scheme. The difference in level density between 26Al and 27Al depends strongly on the pairing-gap energy and is well described by a gap parameter of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=12A^{1/2}`$ MeV$`=2.3`$ MeV, using $`A=28`$222It is difficult to determine an appropriate pairing gap parameter in this mass region. If one calculates pairing gap parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ from nuclear mass differences , the various systems give strongly scattered values. This mainly reflects the variation in the distance between the Fermi level and neighbouring single particle states , which could in principle be as high as $`\epsilon 2.0`$ MeV. Since this distance is schematically included in our model, we adopt here the ”pure” pairing contribution of approximately $`\mathrm{\Delta }=12A^{1/2}`$ MeV, which represents an average value in this mass region..

The pairing-attenuation factor, defined as the ratio between the amount of energy needed to break one nucleon pair compared to the previous broken pair, is set to $`r=0.56`$ (for details see ). For simplicity, we have used the same values of $`\epsilon `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`r`$ for protons and neutrons. Furthermore, all calculations include a reservoir of seven proton and seven neutron pairs. The collective parameters are taken from experimental data on 28Si. The rotational parameter $`A_{\mathrm{rot}}=E/2(2+1)=0.3`$ MeV is calculated from the first excited state $`(I^\pi =2^+)`$, and the vibrational energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{vib}}=5.0`$ MeV is set equal to the excitation energy of the first non-rotational state $`(I^\pi =0^+)`$.

The very same parameter set is used in the calculation for 27Si and 28Si in figure 8. The calculation describes well the experimental data of 27Si for excitation energies above $`E4`$ MeV. For 28Si, the more statistical and smooth part of the level density takes place first above $`E9`$ MeV, making it difficult to judge the agreement between model and experiment in this case.

By comparing the level densities between even-even (28Si), odd-$`A`$ (27Al or 27Si), and odd-odd (26Al) systems333The proton and neutron parameters are identical and give no difference between odd-even and even-odd systems. We therefore denote either of these two systems as the odd-$`A`$ system., we may extract interesting information. In figure 9, the free energy $`F`$, entropy $`S`$, average excitation energy $`E`$, and heat capacity $`C_V`$ are shown as functions of temperature for the three systems. A fruitful quantity is the entropy difference $`\delta S`$ between systems with $`A`$ and $`A\pm 1`$. At low temperatures, this quantity is approximately extensive (additive) and represents the single-particle entropy associated with the valence particle (or hole) . In the upper right panel, we find that the nucleon carries a single-particle entropy of $`\delta S1.0`$ at $`T1.5`$ MeV.

The single-particle entropy can also be deduced from the experimental data of aluminium (and possibly also from silicon). The high-energy data points of figure 7 reveal that the level density of 26Al is $`2.7`$ times higher than for 27Al. Remembering that the level density and entropy are connected by

$$S=\mathrm{ln}\rho +\mathrm{constant},$$
(9)
we deduce also here $`\delta S1.0`$.

The statistical definition of temperature in the microcanonical ensemble is given by

$$T=\left(\frac{S}{E}\right)_V^1,$$
(10)
giving typically $`T2.4`$ MeV for the data points of 27Al in the excitation-energy region of 7–11 MeV, see figure 7. Since the excitation-energy shift between the level densities of figure 7 amounts approximately to the pairing-gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we may express the slope of $`\mathrm{ln}(\rho )`$ as $`\delta S/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or, according to equations (9) and (10), as $`T^1`$, giving

$$\delta S=\mathrm{\Delta }/T,$$
(11)
which again confirms $`\delta S=2.3/2.41.0`$.

The extracted single-particle entropy is lower than observed in heavier mid-shell nuclei where typically $`\delta S1.7`$ . The recent findings are supported by the systematics of figure 10, where the experimentally deduced level densities at $`E=7`$ MeV are displayed for various nuclear systems. These data points are evaluated as a linear interpolation of $`\mathrm{ln}\rho (E)`$ between two anchor points: (i) the level density based on known levels at low excitation energy and (ii) the level density estimated from neutron resonance energy spacings at the neutron binding energy . Figure 10 shows larger error bars and more scattered data for mass numbers below $`A40`$, which mainly reflects that the first anchor point is strongly influenced by local shell effects. However, in spite of local shell effects below $`A40`$, it is clear that the level densities drop one order of magnitude, and the level density gaps between various systems are severely reduced. From our model calculations, this change is due to a decrease in the ratio between the temperature $`T`$ and the single-particle energy spacing $`\epsilon `$. In the mass region studied here, the temperature and spacing are approximately equal, i.e., $`T\epsilon `$, and the valence nucleon is thermally smeared over the ground state and the first excited single-particle level, giving $`\delta S=\mathrm{ln}2=0.7`$, only. In the rare earth region, we have typically $`T3\epsilon `$ and the valence nucleon is thermally spread over several single-particle levels, giving higher entropy.

The heat-capacity curves of figure 9 show S-shaped forms, in particular for the even-even system. The local maximum of this shape appears at $`T_m2.4`$ MeV, corresponding to an excitation energy of $`E=10`$ MeV. At this point, the excitation energy increases strongly with temperature, indicating a substantial breaking of nuclear Cooper pairs. It is tempting to connect this overshoot in heat capacity with a pairing-phase transition. In order to test this, we have studied the distribution of zeros of the partition function in the complex temperature plane, as prescribed in . In our calculations, we find that the zeros move away from the real, inverse-temperature axis with increasing inverse temperature. This property is inconsistent with a pairing-phase transition in the thermodynamical limit of $`A\mathrm{}`$, in accordance with the generalized Ehrenfest definition of a phase transition . A similar conclusion has also been drawn for the Fe mass region .

## 4 Gamma-ray strength

The $`\gamma `$-ray energy-dependent function $`𝒯(E_\gamma )`$ contains information on the average $`\gamma `$-decay probability. In figure 11, the non-normalized $`𝒯(E_\gamma )`$ of equation (3) is shown with the $`\alpha `$ parameter determined in section 3. The two extreme data points at $`E_\gamma =3.2`$ and 5.0 MeV for 27Si and 28Si, respectively, are probably due to a singularity in the extraction method, giving too small error bars.

It has been shown  that the regularity of the $`\gamma `$-decay strength in the continuum is determined by the $`\gamma `$-ray strength function555Also called the radiative strength function in literature.

$$f_{XL}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XL}^i(E_\gamma )/(E_\gamma ^{2L+1}D^i),$$
(12)
where $`E_\gamma `$ is the transition energy, $`X`$ denotes the electric or magnetic character, $`L`$ is the multipolarity, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XL}^i(E_\gamma )`$ is the partial radiative width, and $`D^i`$ is the level spacing of states with spins and parities equal to those of the initial state $`i`$. The main part of high-lying levels is known to decay by $`E1`$ and $`M1`$ $`\gamma `$ transitions. Thus, one could in principle extract $`f_{E1}+f_{M1}`$ from the present experiment in the same way as has been done for several rare-earth nuclei . However, the concept of an average radiative width is difficult to adopt for these light nuclei, since there is no experimental information on the mean values of the level spacing $`D^i`$; there are less than one level per MeV with presumably the same spin and parity.

Even though the absolute strength of $`f`$ is uncertain, its functional dependence on $`E_\gamma `$ can be studied. The shape of the measured $`\gamma `$-ray transmission coefficient is given by

$$𝒯(E_\gamma )=2\pi \underset{\lambda =1,2,\mathrm{}}{}[f_{E\lambda }(E_\gamma )+f_{M\lambda }(E_\gamma )]E_\gamma ^{2\lambda +1}.$$
(13)
If the transitions are mainly governed by single-particle dipole transitions, an $`E_\gamma ^3`$ shape would be expected according to the Weisskopf estimate, where $`f_{E1}`$ and $`f_{M1}`$ take constant values. The functional form is displayed in figure 11. Both 27Si and 28Si show a rather flat shape of $`𝒯`$ for $`E_\gamma <4`$–5 MeV. However, for $`E_\gamma >4`$–5 MeV, 28Si follows roughly the $`E_\gamma ^3`$ dependence, indicating that the transitions are rather of single-particle than collective origin as found for rare-earth nuclei . Also, the large spread in lifetimes  of the high-lying levels supports this interpretation.

In 28Si, levels and their lifetimes and $`\gamma `$-decay branching ratios are known up to 9.6 MeV of excitation energy from discrete $`\gamma `$ spectroscopy . Thus, we may define the decay intensity in terms of the partial ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}`$) and total ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$) decay widths by $`I_{ij}(E_\gamma )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, where the $`\gamma `$-transition energy is determined by the excitation energies of the initial ($`i`$) and final ($`j`$) states by $`E_\gamma =E_iE_j`$. For this case, the $`\gamma `$-ray transmission coefficient reads

$$𝒯_{ij}(E_\gamma )=2\pi \mathrm{}I_{ij}(E_\gamma )/\tau _iD^i,$$
(14)
where $`\tau _i`$ is the lifetime of level $`i`$. Here, we roughly estimate $`D^i`$ from the total level density using the spin distribution of . The constructed $`\gamma `$-ray transmission coefficient is then smoothed as a function of $`E_\gamma `$ with the experimental resolution. Despite the fact that not all levels and decay branches are known, figure 11 shows that the smoothed $`\gamma `$-ray transmission coefficient compares surprisingly well with the extracted data points. This indicates that the method may work even in cases where no well-behaving smooth $`\gamma `$-ray strength function is present.

## 5 Conclusions

A simultaneous extraction of level densities and $`\gamma `$-ray transmission coefficients in 27,28Si has been performed. Comparison to literature data gives excellent agreement within the experimental resolution. This study demonstrates that the extraction method also works for light nuclei, despite the fact that thermalization might seem questionable. The concept of a $`\gamma `$-ray strength function in this mass region is not very useful. The measured $`\gamma `$-energy dependence of approximately $`E_\gamma ^3`$ indicates that the $`\gamma `$ decay is governed by single-particle dipole transitions.

A simple thermodynamical model reproduces the high excitation-energy region of the experimental data. For 27,28Si and 26,27Al, we conclude that a nuclear temperature of $`T2.4`$ MeV and a pairing gap parameter of $`\mathrm{\Delta }2.3`$ MeV describes the level densities at high excitation energies. Both experiment and model indicate that the valence nucleon in this mass region carries an entropy of $`\delta S1.0`$. This is close to the expected value of 0.7 when the thermal nucleonic excitation is smeared over the ground state and only one excited single-particle level. The pair breaking process is strongly smeared out in temperature (and excitation energy) and a phase transition in the sense of the Ehrenfest definition is doubtful.

The present work encourages also similar studies in the mass region $`A=30`$–100. Here, nuclear level densities are used in the determination of nuclear reaction cross sections from Hauser-Feshbach type of calculations. These cross sections, as well as the $`\gamma `$-ray strength functions, are important inputs in large network calculations of stellar evolution , as well as in the simulations of accelerator-driven transmutation of nuclear waste.

## Acknowledgements

Financial support from the Norwegian Research Council (NFR) is gratefully acknowledged. Part of this work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-48. T.L. warmly acknowledges the financial support from the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation in Helsinki. A.V. would like to thank the staff of the University of Oslo for their warm hospitality while this manuscript was prepared and acknowledges support from a NATO Science Fellowship under project number 150027/432 given by the Norwegian Research Council (NFR).

## References


text:
# Screw dislocations in the field theory of elastoplasticity

## 1 Introduction

The traditional description of the elastic field produced by a dislocation is based on the classical theory of linear elasticity . This approach works for the strain and stress field far from the core quite well. However, the components of these fields are singular at the dislocation line and this theory, often applied to practical problems, misses the important feature of plasticity. This is unfortunate since the dislocation core is the most important region in metallic plasticity.

Therefore, it is quite natural to think of dislocation theory as a field theory of elastoplasticity . In this framework, it is possible to understand the dislocation density as the elastoplastic field strength like the magnetic field strength in Maxwell’s theory. The presence of dislocations leads to a specific response with the dimension of a moment stress, so that the excitation or response quantity in elastoplasticity can be identified with a localized moment stress tensor. In order to obtain a physical field theory of dislocations, we have to choose a constitutive law between dislocation density and moment stress which is compatible with the symmetric force stress. We use the constitutive law for the moment stress which is proportional to the Nye tensor. A new material constant enters the constitutive law. Additionally, it is possible to define a characteristic internal material length in this theory by means of the new material constant.

On the other hand, there are other non-standard continuum models of dislocations as, e.g., the nonlocal continuum model  and strain gradient elasticity . In these approaches also a characteristic length (gradient coefficient or nonlocality parameter) appears. In the case of a straight screw dislocation in an infinite medium, the force stresses in nonlocal elasticity  and in gradient elasticity  agree with the gauge theoretical ones . These solutions have no singularities at the dislocation line.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, the linear elastoplastic field theory of dislocations  is recalled. In this paper we use the widespread formalism of tensor analysis because we believe that this formulation of the elastoplastic field theory is comprehensible and useful for material scientists, experimental physicists and engineers. We give the relation of this elastoplastic theory to Kröner’s dislocation theory . In Section 3, we investigate screw dislocations with different boundary conditions in this framework.

## 2 Linear elastoplastic field theory of dislocations

In the elastoplastic field theory, the incompatible distortion tensor

$`B_{ij}=_j\xi _i+\varphi _{ij},`$ (1)
plays a fundamental role . Here $`\xi _i`$ is the mapping function from the ideal or reference configuration to the final or deformed configuration. The first part of Eq. (1) describes the integrable part of the distortion, while $`\varphi _{ij}`$ is, in general, the nonintegrable distortion which can be identified with the gauge potential of dislocations in the framework of the $`T(3)`$-gauge theory. The form of Eq. (1) can be understood as a minimal replacement of the compatible distortion, $`B_{ij}=_j\xi _i`$, in $`T(3)`$-gauge theory and is obtained from the translational part of the generalized affine connection . The distortion $`B_{ij}`$ describes the local distortion from the ideal or reference state to the dislocated state which is now anholonomic.

For simplicity, we will consider here a linear isotropic theory of dislocations. In this case, we do not distinguish between covariant and contravariant indices. A nonlinear elastoplastic field theory of dislocations has been proposed in Refs.  (see also ).

If we use the weak field approximation (linearization)

$`\xi _i=x_i+u_i,B_{ij}=\delta _{ij}+\beta _{ij},`$ (2)
where $`u_i`$ is the displacement field, the linear elastic strain tensor is given by means of the incompatible distortion tensor as

$`E_{ij}\beta _{(ij)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_iu_j+_ju_i+\varphi _{ij}+\varphi _{ji}\right).`$ (3)
The elastic strain energy of an isotropic material reads

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu \left(\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}+\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\nu }{12\nu }}\delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}\right)E_{ij}E_{kl},`$ (4)
where $`\mu `$ is the shear modulus and $`\nu `$ Poisson’s ratio. The (symmetric) force stress is the response quantity (excitation) with respect to the strain and is given by

$`\sigma _{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{W}{E_{ij}}}=2\mu \left(E_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{12\nu }}\delta _{ij}E_{kk}\right),\sigma _{ij}=\sigma _{ji}.`$ (5)
The total strain $`E_{ij}^T`$ and distortion $`\beta _{ij}^T`$ are defined in terms of the total displacement field $`u_i^T`$. In the presence of dislocations, the total strain is not completely elastic, but a part of it is stress-free or plastic  so that

$`E_{ij}^T_{(i}u_{j)}^T=E_{ij}+E_{ij}^P,\beta _{ij}^T_ju_i^T=\beta _{ij}+\beta _{ij}^P.`$ (6)
The skew-symmetric part of the distortion tensor defines the elastic rotation of a dislocation

$`\omega _i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}\beta _{jk}.`$ (7)
The elastoplastic field strength is defined by means of the distortion tensor (gauge potential) as follows

$`T_{ijk}:=_j\beta _{ik}_k\beta _{ij}=_j\varphi _{ik}_k\varphi _{ij},T_{ijk}=T_{ikj},`$ (8)
and

$`T_{ijk}=_j\beta _{ik}^P+_k\beta _{ij}^P,`$ (9)
where $`\beta _{ij}^P`$ is the plastic distortion tensor which may be identified with $`\varphi _{ij}`$. The usual dislocation density $`\alpha _{ij}`$, which was originally introduced by Nye , is recovered by

$`\alpha _{ij}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{jkl}T_{ikl}=ϵ_{jkl}_k\beta _{il}=ϵ_{jkl}_k\beta _{il}^P.`$ (10)
In this approach the dislocation density may not assumed as a delta function. It satisfies the translational Bianchi identity

$`_j\alpha _{ij}=0,`$ (11)
which means that dislocations cannot end inside the body. Note that the $`\alpha _{ij}`$ defined here is the transpose of the dislocation density $`\alpha _{ji}`$ used by Kröner  (and $`\alpha _{ji}`$ in ).

We use the Lagrangian of dislocations in the following form

$`_{\mathrm{disl}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}T_{ijk}H_{ijk},`$ (12)
with the moment stress $`H_{ijk}`$ as the elastoplastic excitation (response quantity) to the dislocation density (torsion)222Here, the so-called Einstein-choice is used (see ).

$`H_{ijk}=2{\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{disl}}}{T_{ijk}}}={\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{2}}\left(T_{ijk}T_{jki}T_{kij}2\delta _{ij}T_{llk}2\delta _{ik}T_{ljl}\right).`$ (13)
Here, $`H_{ijk}=H_{ikj}`$. The coefficient $`a_1`$ has the dimension of a force. If we use the relations $`H_{im}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{jkm}H_{ijk}`$ and $`T_{ijk}=ϵ_{jkm}\alpha _{im}`$, we find from Eq. (13) the relation between the moment stress tensor $`H_{ij}`$ and the Nye  tensor $`\kappa _{ij}`$ as

$`H_{ij}=a_1\left(\alpha _{ji}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{ij}\alpha _{kk}\right)a_1\kappa _{ij}.`$ (14)
Hence, this moment stress tensor $`H_{ij}`$ is proportional to the Nye tensor (see also ). The diagonal components $`H_{ii}`$ describe twisting and the nondiagonal components of $`H_{ij}`$ bending moments localized in the dislocation core region. Alternatively, the dislocation Lagrangian (12) can be written as

$`_{\mathrm{disl}}={\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{2}}\alpha _{ij}\kappa _{ij}.`$ (15)
In the framework of elastoplastic field theory, we require that the modified stress field of a dislocation has the following properties: (i) the stress field should have no singularity at $`r=0`$, (ii) the far field stress ought to be the stress field of a Volterra dislocation (background stress) $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{ij}`$ which satisfies the condition $`_j\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{ij}=0`$. The boundary Lagrangian is given by a so-called null Lagrangian  and by using the minimal replacement $`_ju_i\beta _{ij}`$:

$`W_{\mathrm{bg}}=_j\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{ij}u_i\right)=\left(_j\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{ij}\right)u_i+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{ij}_ju_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{ij}\beta _{ij}.`$ (16)
The Euler-Lagrange equations for $`=_{\mathrm{disl}}W+W_{\mathrm{bg}}`$ take the form

$`_j\sigma _{ij}`$ $`=0`$ $`\text{(force equilibrium)},`$ (17)
$`_kH_{ikj}`$ $`=\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}`$ $`\text{(moment equilibrium)},`$ (18)
where the so-called effective stress tensor,

$`\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}:=\sigma _{ij}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{ij},`$ (19)
is the driving “source” for dislocations. The left hand side of Eq. (18) reads explicitly

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1}}_kH_{ikj}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1}}_kH_{(ij)k}`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }E_{ij}(_j_kE_{ik}+_i_kE_{kj})+\delta _{ij}_k_lE_{kl}+_i_jE_{kk}\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }E_{kk}`$
$`\left(\text{inc}𝑬\right)_{ij}=ϵ_{ikl}ϵ_{jmn}_k_mE_{ln},`$ (20)
and

$`_kH_{[ij]k}=0.`$ (21)
Consequently, the antisymmetric moment equilibrium or equilibrium of couple stress (21) is trivially satisfied in the Einstein choice and, thus, no antisymmetric force stresses appear. Additionally, we obtain the equation for the elastic strain $`E_{ij}`$ as

$`a_1\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }E_{ij}(_j_kE_{ik}+_i_kE_{kj})+\delta _{ij}_k_lE_{kl}+_i_jE_{kk}\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }E_{kk}\right\}=\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}.`$ (22)
This is the incompatibility condition of the elastoplastic theory of dislocations. By means of the inverse of Hooke’s law

$`E_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }}\left(\sigma _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{1+\nu }}\delta _{ij}\sigma _{kk}\right),`$ (23)
and the equilibrium condition $`_j\sigma _{ij}=0`$, we obtain the field equation for the stress field

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\nu }}\left(_i_j\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\sigma _{kk}=\kappa ^2\widehat{\sigma }_{ij},\kappa ^2={\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{a_1}}.`$ (24)
For $`\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}=0`$, this equation is the Beltrami equation. The coefficient $`\kappa `$ has the dimension of a reciprocal length. Now, we compare Eq. (22) with Kröner’s incompatibility condition

$`ϵ_{ikl}ϵ_{jmn}_k_mE_{ln}=\eta _{ij},`$ (25)
where the so-called incompatibility tensor $`\eta _{ij}`$ is defined by

$`\eta _{ij}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(ϵ_{ikl}_k\alpha _{lj}+ϵ_{jkl}_k\alpha _{li}\right).`$ (26)
Then we can identify

$`\eta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1}}\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}.`$ (27)
Therefore, Eq. (22) represents the proper gauge theoretical formulation of Kröner’s incompatibility equation. However, Edelen’s field equation (see, e.g., Eq. (9-8.7) in Ref. )

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta _{ij}_j_l\beta _{il}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1}}\widehat{\sigma }_{ij},`$ (28)
cannot be interpreted in this way, in contrast to his claim.

We may define the tensor

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}:=ϵ_{jkl}_k\kappa _{il}`$ (29)
which can be identified with the linearized Einstein tensor in a Riemannian space. Here, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}`$ is determined by the dislocation density. Using $`H_{ijk}=ϵ_{jkl}H_{il}`$ and Eq. (14), the field equation (18) has the shape of a linearized Einstein-type field equation according to (see also )

$`a_1\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}=\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}\text{with }_j\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}=0,_j\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}=0.`$ (30)
## 3 Screw dislocations in the elastoplastic field theory

### 3.1 Screw dislocation in a cylinder

We now consider an infinitely long screw dislocation whose dislocation line and Burgers vector coincide with the axis of an isotropic cylinder of radius $`R`$. Due to the symmetry of the problem, we choose the Burgers vector and the dislocation line in $`z`$-direction: $`b_x=b_y=0`$, $`b_z=b`$. Using the stress function ansatz , the elastic stress of a Volterra screw dislocation, in Cartesian coordinates, reads

$`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{xz}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{zx}=_y\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{r^2}},\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{yz}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{zy}=_x\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r^2}},`$ (31)
or, in cylindrical coordinates,

$`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{z\phi }=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\phi z}=_r\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi r}},`$ (32)
where $`r^2=x^2+y^2`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the well-known stress function of elastic torsion, sometimes called Prandtl’s stress function. It is given by (see, e.g., )

$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}r.`$ (33)
This is Green’s function of the 2-dimensional potential equation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=\mu b\delta (r).`$ (34)
Obviously, the “classical” stress fields are singular at the dislocation line. For simplicity, we assume that the cylindrical surface $`r=R`$ is free of tractions, i.e.,

$`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{rr}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{r\phi }=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\phi r}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{rz}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{zr}=0\text{for}r=R.`$ (35)
For the modified stresses we make the ansatz

$`\sigma _{xz}=\sigma _{zx}=_yF,\sigma _{yz}=\sigma _{zy}=_xF,`$ (36)
where $`F`$ is called the modified Prandtl stress function. We turn to Eq. (24) and use $`\sigma _{kk}=0`$. In this way, the field equation for the force stress of a linear screw dislocation reduces to an inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation,

$`\left(1\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\sigma _{ij}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{ij},`$ (37)
with the “source” term given in terms of the well-known solutions of classical dislocation theory for the same traction boundary-value problem. Thus, for the elastic strain fields,

$`\left(1\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Delta }\right)E_{ij}=\stackrel{}{E}_{ij},`$ (38)
where $`\stackrel{}{E}_{ij}`$ is the “classical” strain tensor. Substituting the stress functions into (37), we get

$`\left(1\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Delta }\right)F={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}r.`$ (39)
The solution of the modified stress function of a screw dislocation is given by

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}\left\{\mathrm{ln}r+K_0(\kappa r)\right\},`$ (40)
where $`K_n`$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind and of order $`n`$. Consequently, we find the force stresses

$`\sigma _{xz}=\sigma _{zx}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\},\sigma _{yz}=\sigma _{zy}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\},`$ (41)
and in cylindrical coordinates

$`\sigma _{z\phi }=\sigma _{\phi z}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\}.`$ (42)
If we choose the coefficient $`\kappa `$ as ($`a`$ = lattice constant)

$`\kappa ^10.4a,`$ (43)
the stress $`\sigma _{zy}`$ has its maximum $`0.4\kappa \mu b/2\pi =\mu b/2\pi a`$ at $`x1.1/\kappa =0.44a`$ whereas the minimum $`0.4\kappa \mu b/2\pi =\mu b/2\pi a`$ lies at $`x1.1/\kappa =0.44a`$.

This is in agreement with the Peierls-Nabarro model. Note that the maximum stress may be identified with the theoretical shear strength. The core radius $`r_c`$ is then given as $`r_c2.4a`$ (Figure 1). This estimate of $`\kappa `$ is in conformity with the result in Eringen’s nonlocal elasticity theory. He pointed out that for the choice of $`\kappa ^10.4a`$ one has an excellent fit between atomic dispersion curve and the nonlocal result . However, the factor $`\kappa `$ should be fitted by comparing predictions of the theory with experimental results. In general, the parameter $`\kappa `$ can be used to determine the width of a dislocation and the amplitude of the force stress.

Let us now calculate the distortion of a screw dislocation. The distortion $`\beta _{ij}`$ is given in terms of the stress function

$`\beta _{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& _yF+2\mu \omega _1\\ 0& 0& _xF2\mu \omega _2\\ _yF2\mu \omega _1& _xF+2\mu \omega _2& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (47)
where $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are used to express the antisymmetric part of the distortion. Eventually, $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are determined from the conditions

$`\alpha _{xy}=T_{xzx}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }}_x\left(2\mu \omega _1_yF\right)0,`$ (48)
$`\alpha _{yx}=T_{yyz}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }}_y\left(2\mu \omega _2_xF\right)0.`$ (49)
One finds for the distortion tensor of the screw dislocation

$`\beta _{zx}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\},\beta _{zy}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\},`$ (50)
and for elastic rotation vector

$`\omega _x\omega _2={\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\},\omega _y\omega _1={\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\}.`$ (51)
The rotation vector is in agreement with the result calculated in the Cosserat theory .

By means of the distortion tensor it is possible to determine the effective Burgers vector as

$`b_z(r)={\displaystyle _\gamma }\left(\beta _{zx}\mathrm{d}x+\beta _{zy}\mathrm{d}y\right)=b\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\},`$ (52)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Burgers circuit. This effective Burgers vector differs appreciably from the constant value $`b`$ in the core region from $`r=0`$ up to $`r6/\kappa `$. Thus, it is suggestive to take $`r_c6/\kappa `$ as the characteristic length (dislocation core radius). Outside this core region, the Burgers vector reaches its constant value. Accordingly, the classical and the elastoplastic solution coincide outside the core region.

If we use the decomposition (6) of the elastic distortion into the total and the plastic distortion, the total displacement field turns out to be

$`u_z^T={\displaystyle \frac{b}{2\pi }}\phi \left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\},\phi =\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{x}}.`$ (53)
Thus, the proper incompatible part of the total distortion is the plastic distortion which is confined in the dislocation core region

$`\beta _{zx}^P={\displaystyle \frac{b\kappa ^2}{2\pi }}x\phi K_0(\kappa r),\beta _{zy}^P={\displaystyle \frac{b\kappa ^2}{2\pi }}y\phi K_0(\kappa r).`$ (54)
It fulfills Eq. (10). When $`\kappa ^10`$, the plastic distortion (54) converts to $`\beta _{zx}^P=bx\phi \delta (r)`$ and $`\beta _{zy}^P=by\phi \delta (r)`$. In our framework, Eq. (53) describes the “atomic” arrangement in the dislocation core region in contrast to classical elasticity which leads to an unphysical singularity. The incompatible elastic and plastic strains read, respectively,

$`E_{xz}=E_{zx}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\},E_{yz}=E_{zy}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\},`$ (55)
and

$`E_{xz}^P=E_{zx}^P={\displaystyle \frac{b\kappa ^2}{4\pi }}x\phi K_0(\kappa r),E_{yz}^P=E_{zy}^P={\displaystyle \frac{b\kappa ^2}{4\pi }}y\phi K_0(\kappa r).`$ (56)
Now we are able to calculate the dislocation density by means of the distortion tensor. We obtain

$`\alpha _{zz}=T_{zxy}=T_{zyx}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}\mathrm{\Delta }F={\displaystyle \frac{b\kappa ^2}{2\pi }}K_0(\kappa r).`$ (57)
Of course, this dislocation density satisfies the conditions (11), (26) and (27). In the limit as $`\kappa ^10`$, the elastoplastical result (57) converts to the classical dislocation density $`\alpha _{zz}=b\delta (r)`$. The localised moment stresses caused by the screw dislocation can be expressed in terms of the dislocation density as

$`H_{zz}=a_1\kappa _{zz}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\kappa ^2}}\alpha _{zz},H_{xx}=a_1\kappa _{xx}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\kappa ^2}}\alpha _{zz},H_{yy}=a_1\kappa _{yy}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\kappa ^2}}\alpha _{zz},`$ (58)
and

$`H_{kk}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\kappa ^2}}\alpha _{zz},\kappa _{kk}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _{zz}.`$ (59)
Accordingly, moment stresses of twisting-type occur at all positions where the dislocation density $`\alpha _{zz}`$ is non-vanishing. When $`\kappa ^10`$, the moment stresses vanish.

We next define the characteristic intrinsic material length by

$`R_c:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{2\mu }}}.`$ (60)
$`R_c`$ measures the region over which the dislocation density (torsion), the Nye tensor and the moment stress are appreciably different from zero. It can be called the plastic penetration depth. Then $`R_c`$ is the internal length which measures the plastic region where $`\beta _{ij}^P0`$. In this region the local atomic configuration is fundamentally different from that of the defect-free part of the crystal. An important consequence is that the mechanical but also the electrical properties are different from those in the undefected crystal.

The strain energy density produced by the screw dislocation is

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _{ij}E_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b^2}{8\pi ^2r^2}}\left(1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right)^2.`$ (61)
We find the strain energy stored per unit length of the screw dislocation in the cylinder as

$`E_{\mathrm{strain}}`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^R}drr{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\phi W`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b^2}{4\pi }}\left\{\mathrm{ln}r+2K_0(\kappa r)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2r^2}{2}}\left(K_1(\kappa r)^2K_0(\kappa r)K_2(\kappa r)\right)\right\}|_0^R,`$ (62)
where $`R`$ is the outer cut-off radius. We use the limiting expressions for $`r0`$,

$`K_0(\kappa r)\gamma \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa r}{2}},K_1(\kappa r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa r}},K_2(\kappa r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(\kappa r)^2}},`$ (63)
where $`\gamma =0.57721566\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler constant. The final result reads

$`E_{\mathrm{strain}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b^2}{4\pi }}\{\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa R}{2}}+\gamma `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+2K_0(\kappa R)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2R^2}{2}}(K_1(\kappa R)^2K_0(\kappa R)K_2(\kappa R))\}.`$ (64)
Thus, we obtain a strain energy expression which is not singular at the dislocation line and at $`R`$.

The dislocation core energy density produced by the screw dislocation is given by

$`V_{\mathrm{core}}={\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{2}}\alpha _{zz}\kappa _{zz}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b^2\kappa ^2}{8\pi ^2}}K_0(\kappa r)^2.`$ (65)
The dislocation core energy per unit length of the screw dislocation is

$`E_{\mathrm{core}}`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^R}drr{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\phi V_{\mathrm{core}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b^2\kappa ^2}{8\pi }}r^2\left\{K_0(\kappa r)^2K_1(\kappa r)^2\right\}|_0^R`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b^2}{8\pi }}\left\{1+\kappa ^2R^2\left(K_0(\kappa R)^2K_1(\kappa R)^2\right)\right\}.`$ (66)
Eventually, the total energy per unit length of the screw dislocation in a cylinder is given by

$`E_{\mathrm{screw}}`$ $`=E_{\mathrm{strain}}+E_{\mathrm{core}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b^2}{4\pi }}\left\{\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa R}{2}}+\gamma +2K_0(\kappa R)\kappa RK_0(\kappa R)K_1(\kappa R)\right\}.`$ (67)
It depends on the radius $`R`$ of the cylinder.

### 3.2 A dipole and parallel screw dislocations

Because the strain and stress fields in our approach have not any singularities, it is interesting to discuss the stress fields of two (anti)-parallel screw dislocations ($`A`$) and ($`B`$) near the dislocation cores. These two dislocations lie in the ($`xy`$)-plane at $`x=0`$, $`y=0`$ ($`A`$) and $`x=d`$, $`y=0`$ ($`B`$) with the Burgers vector extending in $`z`$-direction. Eventually, the stress fields of these two screw dislocations are given by the superpositions of the corresponding fields of individual ones as

$`\sigma _{yz}^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b_Ax}{r_A^2}}\left\{1\kappa r_AK_1(\kappa r_A)\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_B(xd)}{r_B^2}}\left\{1\kappa r_BK_1(\kappa r_B)\right\}\right),`$
$`\sigma _{xz}^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b_Ay}{r_A^2}}\left\{1\kappa r_AK_1(\kappa r_A)\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_By}{r_B^2}}\left\{1\kappa r_BK_1(\kappa r_B)\right\}\right).`$ (68)
Here $`r_A^2=x^2+y^2`$ and $`r_B^2=(xd)^2+y^2`$. For $`b_A=b_B`$ and $`b_A=b_B`$, this configuration describes two parallel screw dislocations and a dipole of screw dislocations, respectively.

Again, in contrast to the classical stress fields, the modified stress fields dislpay a smooth shape and have no singularity (Figure 2).

We may discuss the stress field of a wall of screw dislocations. A finite wall of (anti) parallel screw dislocations lying in the plane $`x=0`$ is obtained by a superposition of the individual screw dislocations. The stress field of this wall is given by

$`\sigma _{yz}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu b_n}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r_n^2}}\left\{1\kappa r_nK_1(\kappa r_n)\right\},\sigma _{xz}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu b_n}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{y_n}{r_n^2}}\left\{1\kappa r_nK_1(\kappa r_n)\right\},`$ (69)
where $`N+1`$ is the number of the dislocations in the wall, $`b_n`$ is the Burgers vector of the individual dislocations, $`r_n^2=x^2+y_n^2`$, $`y_n=ynd`$ and $`d`$ is the spacing of the dislocations.

Because the stress fields have no singularities, it is possible to study the behaviour and the interaction between the screw dislocations in this framework.

### 3.3 A coaxial screw dislocation in a cylinder

Now we consider a screw dislocation in a cylinder of finite length in $`z`$-direction. Up to now, this problem was only discussed in classical elasticity (see ). We use the solution (42) which fulfills the boundary condition at the cylindrical surface $`r=R`$. On the end of the surfaces the solution (42) produces the torque

$`M_z`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\phi {\displaystyle _0^R}drr^2\sigma _{z\phi }`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu bR^2}{2}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\kappa ^2R^2}}+2K_2(\kappa R)\right\}`$ (70)
on the upper basis and $`M_z`$ on the lower basis of the cylinder. Thus, Eq. (42) is not the correct solution for a finite rod and it has to be modified. The torque is removed by adding an equal and opposite one by means of an additional background condition

$`\stackrel{}{u}{}_{x}{}^{}=\tau yz,\stackrel{}{u}{}_{y}{}^{}=\tau xz,`$
$`\stackrel{}{\sigma }{}_{xz}{}^{}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }{}_{zx}{}^{}=\tau \mu y,\stackrel{}{\sigma }{}_{yz}{}^{}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }{}_{zy}{}^{}=\tau \mu x,`$ (71)
with a coefficient $`\tau `$ which is the so-called Eshelby twist. Then the correct boundary condition for the stress field is

$`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{xz}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{zx}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{r^2}}+\tau \mu y,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{yz}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{zy}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r^2}}\tau \mu x.`$ (72)
Eventually we find from Eq. (37)

$`\sigma _{xz}=\sigma _{zx}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\}+\tau \mu y,`$
$`\sigma _{yz}=\sigma _{zy}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\}\tau \mu x,`$ (73)
and in cylindrical coordinates

$`\sigma _{z\phi }=\sigma _{\phi z}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\}\tau \mu r.`$ (74)
We determine $`\tau `$ from the condition of vanishing torque, $`M_z=0`$, with

$`M_z`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\phi {\displaystyle _0^R}drr^2\sigma _{z\phi }`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu bR^2}{2}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\kappa ^2R^2}}+2K_2(\kappa R)\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau \mu \pi R^4.`$ (75)
We find the “modified” Eshelby twist

$`\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{b}{\pi R^2}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\kappa ^2R^2}}+2K_2(\kappa R)\right\}.`$ (76)
The first term is the “classical” Eshelby twist (see ) and the last two terms are correction terms in our approach. The correction terms depend on the intrinsic material length $`\kappa ^1`$. The Eshelby twist is an observed quantity in a thin metal whisker which has a screw dislocation along its axis . It is important in transmission electron microscopy since it reveals screw dislocations normal to the foil under consideration by a characteristic contrast. In principle, if the “correction” terms give a measurable contribution, the constitutive constant $`\kappa `$ could be determined in such experiment.

Finally, the total displacements and stresses for the axial screw dislocation in a free rod are given by

$`u_\phi ^T={\displaystyle \frac{brz}{\pi R^2}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\kappa ^2R^2}}+2K_2(\kappa R)\right\},u_z^T={\displaystyle \frac{b}{2\pi }}\phi \left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\},`$ (77)
$`\sigma _{z\phi }=\sigma _{\phi z}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r){\displaystyle \frac{2r^2}{R^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\kappa ^2R^2}}+2K_2(\kappa R)\right)\right\}.`$ (78)
The rotation vector of the screw dislocation in a whisker reads

$`\omega _x`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau x,`$
$`\omega _y`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{r^2}}\left\{1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau y,`$
$`\omega _z`$ $`=\tau z.`$ (79)
If we use the definition of the rotation gradient (deWit’s bend-twist tensor)

$`k_{ij}=_j\omega _i,`$ (80)
the far-reaching rotation gradients of a coaxial screw dislocation in the whisker read

$`k_{xx}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\pi r^4}}\left\{\left(y^2x^2\right)\left(1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right)+\kappa ^2x^2r^2K_0(\kappa r)\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau ,`$
$`k_{yy}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\pi r^4}}\left\{\left(x^2y^2\right)\left(1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right)+\kappa ^2y^2r^2K_0(\kappa r)\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau ,`$
$`k_{xy}`$ $`=k_{yx}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\pi r^4}}xy\left\{2\left(1\kappa rK_1(\kappa r)\right)\kappa ^2r^2K_0(\kappa r)\right\},`$
$`k_{zz}`$ $`=\tau ,`$
$`k_{jj}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _{zz}.`$ (81)
For $`\tau =0`$, these rotation gradients are in agreement with the expressions calculated within the theory of Cosserat media (see ). Additionally, we find the relation $`\kappa _{jj}+k_{jj}=0`$. Thus, the sum of the Nye tensor and the rotation gradient, which may be considered as the total “lattice” curvature or total bend-twist tensor, is a deviator, that is, it is traceless.

It is interesting to note that the strain energy of an axial screw dislocation is influenced from the free-surface terms. Eventually, the strain energy of the screw dislocation in a finite cylinder of outer radius $`R`$ is given by

$`E_{\mathrm{strain}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu b^2}{4\pi }}\{\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa R}{2}}+\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+2K_0(\kappa R)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2R^2}{2}}(K_1(\kappa R)^2K_0(\kappa R)K_2(\kappa R))\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu b^2}{4\pi }}\{1{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\kappa ^2R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{\kappa ^4R^4}}+4K_2(\kappa R){\displaystyle \frac{16}{\kappa ^2R^2}}K_2(\kappa R)`$
$`+4K_0(\kappa R)K_2(\kappa R)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\kappa R}}K_1(\kappa R)K_2(\kappa R)\}.`$ (82)
The terms in the third and fourth line of Eq. (3.3) arise from the “modified” Eshelby twist. Note that the first term in the third line of Eq. (3.3) is the correction term resulting solely from the “classical” Eshelby twist, see . The core energy (3.1) is not influenced by the Eshelby twist.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have considered a linear elastoplastic field theory of dislocations. The total Lagrangian of elastoplasticity has the following symbolic form

$`=C𝜷^2+A𝜶^2+\text{boundary terms},`$ (83)
where $`A`$, $`C`$ are material tensors. It is given in terms of the both physical state quantities, namely the elastic distortion $`𝜷`$ and the dislocation density $`𝜶`$. Comparing the dimensions, we note that $`𝜷`$ is dimensionless and $`𝜶`$ has the dimension of an inverse length. Therefore, the second term in Eq. (83) contains a factor $`\kappa ^2=1/(\text{length})^2`$ when compared with the first one. In this theory, localized moment stress is the specific response quantity to dislocation density. Thus, an elastoplastic dislocation theory is a theory of force and moment stress. Additionally, we have shown that the field equation of $`𝜷`$ is really the gauge theoretical modification of Kröner’s incompatibility equation.

A new material coefficient $`a_1`$ enters the constitutive relation between dislocation density and moment stress. It defines a new characteristic length $`\kappa ^1`$. In general, this length specifies the plastic region and has to be estimated by means of experimental observations and computer simulations of the core region. In the limit $`\kappa ^10`$, one recovers classical elasticity.

Exact analytical solutions for the total displacement field, elastic and plastic strain, stress fields, and total energy of a screw dislocation in a cylinder and of a coaxial screw dislocation have been reported which have not any singularity in the dislocation core region. Consequently, it would be interesting to compare them with experimental results and related computer simulations. For the coaxial screw dislocation, we found a modified formula for the so-called Eshelby twist. The results for the screw dislocation in a thin whisker should be useful for torsion experiments of thin wires.

Note that the present theory of elastoplasticity is intimately connected with the so-called gradient theory of dislocations  and Eringen’s nonlocal elasticity . The stress field of a screw dislocation in elastoplasticity coincides with the solution in Eringen’s nonlocal elasticity  and in gradient elasticity . The internal characteristic length is thus connected to the gradient coefficient and to the nonlocality parameter. Obviously, the equations (22) and (37) have the form of gradient theory equations of second order. The new material coefficient $`a_1`$ has the meaning similar as a gradient coefficient.

### Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank the Graduate College “Quantum field theory” at the Center for Theoretical Studies of Leipzig University for financial support. He acknowledges the support provided by the Max-Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences in Leipzig during the final stage of this work.