ATOM INDONESIA
Editor’s Report
Article No. : #810
Title of Paper : Calculation of Control Rods Reactivity Worth of RSG-GAS First Core Using Deterministic and Monte Carlo Methods
Editor Name : --- Comment on Descriptions 1. Title
[ X ] Appropriate [ ] Should be changed 2. Abstract
Yes[ X ] No[ ] Is the length reasonable?
Yes[ X ] No[ ] Is it an appropriate summary of the content?
3. Main Text
Yes[ X ] No[ ] Is there anything new in this work?
Yes[ X ] No[ ] Is the relation to previous studies adequately stated?
Yes[ X ] No[ ] Are the assumption(s) and/or method(s) described comprehensively?
Yes[ X ] No[ ] Are the new results adequately emphasized?
Line # Referee’s Comments
95 It’s better to describe the details of the Batan-3DIFF code.
Figures 4 and 6 do not have description. Please add their description 191 The reference of WIMSD-5B is necessary. Please revise.
206 The reference of Batan-FUEL is necessary. Please add its references.
217 In Table 2, why two kinds of ‘No. of groups’ are presented?
280 It’s hard to understand the dimension of Z-direction. It is required to show the core geometry in XZ.
Table 3 Control rods worth in the Experiment is negative value, on the other hand, calculated values are positive value. These results are completely wrong.
Table 3 At least, the same nuclear data library should be used in both deterministic and MC calculation.
346 This discussion is strange. When do you use the newest nuclear data library? Does the result always improve?
Table 4 The reviewer can’t believe that all experimental data by changing different CRs are the same value (keff=1.00008). Please check again your experimental results.
388 The reviewer can’t find Figs. 6a-6f, then, I can’t check the discussion for these results.
Please clarify.
506 using deterministic and deterministic results? What do you mean?
Fig. 8 In a few figures, the unit of differential reactivity is different. Please clarify.
Table 5
It’s better to present C/E value in this table.
Calculated results underestimate the experimental ones. What is the reason of these discrepancies? Can you accept these discrepancies? And how do you improve these discrepancies?
Please proofread your English.
Final comments and recommendations:
- Please revise the paper based on the comments provided - English still needs to be improved
This paper is recommended to be [ ] Accepted without further revision [ ] Accepted with minor revision [ X ] Major Revision is required [ ] Rejected
26/7/2018 Review Form Response
http://aij.batan.go.id/index.php/aij/sectionEditor/viewReviewFormResponse/810/900 1/2
REVIEW FORM RESPONSE
Editor's Report .
1. Title * Appropriate Should be changed 2. Abstract
Is the length reasonable? * Yes
No
Is it an appropriate summary of the content? * Yes
No 3. Main Text
Is there anything new in this work? * Yes
No
Is the relation to previous studies adequately stated? * Yes
No
Are the assumption(s) and/or method(s) described comprehensively? * Yes
No
Are the new results adequately emphasized? * Yes
No
Referee's Comments
26/7/2018 Review Form Response
http://aij.batan.go.id/index.php/aij/sectionEditor/viewReviewFormResponse/810/900 2/2
To use the same nuclear data library in the deterministic and MC codes is essential in this analysis. Reviewers doubt the results in Table 3 and 4 (especially, Table 4).
So, please revise the paper by properly responding to the reviewer recommends.
Final comments and recommendations: *
Authors need to revise the paper by properly responding to the reviewers' comments.
This Paper is recommended to be * Accepted without further revision Accepted with minor revision Major Revision is required Rejected
Close
* Denotes required field
