ATOM INDONESIA
Author's Responses
Article : #1122-8997-1-SM
Article Title : Validation of of Passive Compact-Molten Salt Reactor Neutronic Design Using MCNP6 and Serpent-2
Line # Referee’s Comments Author's Responses
Reviewer #1
Please clarify the legend for materials in Fig. 2. The legends have been added to the figure.
Since the authors did not perform burnup calculation, and the CR was
taken only at BOC, it is recommended to remove line 202 to 214.
We agree with the assessment that burnup calculation was not actually performed.
However, we feel the description of
conversion ratio is still necessary. Therefore, instead of simply removing the lines
altogether, we also replaced it with a description of conversion ratio.
Reviewer #2
"Validation" is not met with the content of this paper. "Comparison Model" may be used for the title of this paper.
We agree with the assessment and decided to replace “Validation” in the title with “Model Comparison.”
Objectives have been described in the abstract. It would be better if objectives could be described more details (precisely) in the "Introduction".
The emphasis on research objectives have been added in the “Introduction” section.
Abstract described introduction, method and results adequately. It is better if conclusion could be added more precisely in the abstract (the findings).
More details on the findings have been added to the abstract, including the
inefficient moderation and neutron leakage.
Results have been discussed clearly. It will be better if results and discussion could describe the findings and comparison with any references.
In each subsection of “Results,” comparisons with other publications have been added.
Part of introduction would be better also
enhanced with literature review to show the state of the art.
More literature reviews on PCMSR have been added to the Introduction.
Figures and tables are clear enough. It will be better if there are any comparison with other references (benchmarking).
Comparison with other publications have been added as an explanation. The reference of SRAC2006 calculation as the initial calculation has also been added into the table.
It will be better if conclusion could describe the findings more precisely.
We have rewritten part of conclusion to provide a more precise details on the findings.
Reviewer #3
Please provide description of all variables in Eq.
(1).
The description of variables has been added below the equation.
Please enhance the state of the art of your study as well as the result and discussion with
benchmarking or comparison with the results from other published literatures.
The state of the art has been emphasized by adding more references and explanation on the difference between this study and previous studies.
Comparison with other published literatures has been added to the Result and Discussion.
Please return to Atom Indonesia Editorial Office via
supplementary file in OJS aplication.23 July 2021
