ATOM INDONESIA JOURNAL
Referee’s Report
Article No. : # 810
Title : Calculation of Control Rods Reactivity Worth of RSG-GAS First Core Using Deterministic and Monte Carlo Methods
Line # Referee’s Comments
95 It’s better to describe the details of the Batan-3DIFF code.
There are no descriptions for Figs. 4 and 6. The reviewer recommends to change the order of figure numbers.
191 The reference of WIMSD-5B is necessary.
206 The reference of Batan-FUEL is necessary.
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 you use the newest nuclear data library, is the result always improved?
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, can’t check the discussion for these results.
506 using deterministic and deterministic results?
Fig.8 In a few figures, the unit of differential reactivity is different.
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 polish your English.
19/7/2018 Review Form Response
http://aij.batan.go.id/index.php/aij/sectionEditor/viewReviewFormResponse/810/889 1/2
REVIEW FORM RESPONSE
Referee’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
Please see the additional file.
19/7/2018 Review Form Response
http://aij.batan.go.id/index.php/aij/sectionEditor/viewReviewFormResponse/810/889 2/2
Final comments and recommendations: *
To use the same nuclear data library in the deterministic and MC codes is essential in this analysis. The reviewer doubts the results in Table 3 and 4 (especially, Table 4). So, the reviewer recommends ‘major revision is required’.
This Paper is recommended to be * Accepted without further revision Accepted with minor revision Major Revision is required Rejected
Close
* Denotes required field
