1. Submission of evaluations Completeness of evaluations
DDEP
Submission of evaluations
Review process
Completeness of evaluations

2. Rules for Evaluation Review Procedure
► The evaluator should produce and send me, two files:
the comments which describes the evaluation,
The tables which gives the results of the evaluation.
If you want a .PDF file in the Monographie format, enter your data with the SAISINUC program, supplied by LNHB, and produce a MS-Access database file called donnees.mdb, send it to LNHB we will return you a Tables.pdf file.
► I will organise a review of the submitted evaluation. An independent reviewer will return you appropriate corrections/suggestions to be made, please take them into consideration and discuss directly with him, just let me inform of the exchange messages.
► When the review process is completed, the reviewer will inform me of his agreement.
► Once these corrections/suggestions have been incorporated into the evaluation and SAISINUC, the evaluator must send updated donnees.mdb and comments.doc files to LNHB.
► We (LNHB member) will read the evaluation before final acceptance and publication on the DDEP website and Monographie.

3. Examples Author Nuclide Comment Data sent to review Rewiever Comments
Status
Final
M.M. Bé
68Ge
22/12/11
F.G. Kondev
Agreed, set to MB/2/24/2012
DONE
04/01/2012
68Ga
received review from FK 25/06/12; sent 2e version 04/07/12
agreed 04/07/2012
V. Chechev
37Ar
11/04/12
M. Woods
sent request to M. Woods (11/04/12)- review received 03/05/12- sent to VC 03/05/12
134Cs
10/04/12
A. Luca
Sent request to A.Luca (10/04/12) - agreed 12/04/12, sent files- review received 15/05/12 - 2e version sent 31/05/12
01/06/2012
agreed 01/06/12
A. Nichols
127Sb
Possible problems due to
completed 16/04/2012 sent comments to AL. - received coorrections 27/04/12- sent to AL 15/05/12
16/05/2012
daughter half-lives
OK 16/05/12
127Te
Problem with normalisation
14/05/12
sent request to VChechev (11/05/12), agreed 14/05 - sent comments to A.L. 14/06/12 - exchange remarks AL-VC 18/06- OK 22/06/12
02/07/2012
127mTe

4. Completeness of evaluations
Who is using our data ?
e.g. the Monte-Carlo simulation codes: we have an interface (Nuc_Pen) between our database and the program “Penelope”.
This program “Nuc_Pen”, is a Monte-Carlo code, in which a drawing of lots, weighted by the emission intensity, is done, at each level for each emission (, , , ce, etc.).
The sum of the emissions depopulated a level is normalised to 1
A drawing of lot is done.
Each emission has a chance to occur which is proportional to its weight g
C. E g
C. E

5. Example: Ba-133
Nuc_Pen simulates a decay from the parent nuclide to the ground state level of the daughter in a “cascade of events”.

6. Example : Ba-133
End cascade
The overall decay scheme is read, step by step. At the end of one series (called “cascade”) we have a of number of lines. Each line correspond to one emission.
1= electron
2= photon
The number of lines corresponding to a given radiation is proportional to its intensity.
At the end of the “cascades”, the total number of lines for a certain radiation must be equal to its intensity.
This file is used as entry file for the Penelope code

7. Comparison with the database, Ba-133
???? !!!!! ???
?????????

8. In the database:
On paper:
Comments: “Similarly, the log ft of the 2nd forbidden decays to the 81- and 161-keV levels are expected to be greater than 10.6 which correspond to branches of less than 0.7% and 0.3%, respectively.”

10. Adjustment of the levels balance
With:
Pec(0,1) = 0,1 % and Pec(0,2) = 0,1 %
THEN :
- What do they require ?
Proposal:
Put in the database a value which is consistent with the associated level balance, if necessary, with a large uncertainty.

11. Completeness of evaluations
- What is missing ?
Moreover, for a good consistency of the calculations, we need:
PK + PL + PM + PN + ….. = 1
aK + aL + aM + aN + ….. = aT