24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

evanustc

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 262.7
散金: 100
帖子: 60
在线: 219.5小时
虫号: 2972777
注册: 2014-02-17
专业: 核技术及其应用

[交流] 第一轮审稿给的意见如下？希望大不，是大修还是小修，系统上是REVISED 已有7人参与

Reviewer #1: This paper presents an overview of a new code capable of performing neutron activation calculations. Validation is described using comparisons with results from the FISPACT code for several benchmarks.
A general comment on the paper is that comparisons to another code do not generally constitute validation that comparisons to actual measurements should be described. The comparisons performed involve only 2 materials so, while comparisons are favorable, it is very difficult to make general conclusions on code performance. It would be desirable to describe any new capabilities that are not already available in existing codes. More specific comments are:
1. The paper states: To validate the code, the validation suits which cover almost all neutron induced nuclear activation reactions and complex irradiation scenarios are selected and presented in this paper. However the paper includes only two comparisons with another code.
2. Clearance index is not widely known and should be defined or referenced.
3. Line 40. CRAM is also a Matrix Exponential method. It is not clear in the paper until much later.
4. Line 33. The CRAM method has also been implemented in ORIGEN for several years. The referenced code ORIGEN2 has not been supported for 30 years. See https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.04.037
5. Sect 2.1 heading should be nuclear data library
6. Table 1 includes many conversions that do not require defining
7. Sect 3 would be better placed in Sect 2 as code description. It is not clear what term 'improvements' is referring to.
8. Many parts of Sect 3.1 and 3.2 are not clear. A cutoff value is mentioned but not defined. Not clear what is being done beyond removing transition elements that do not contribute to the result.
9. The IAEA activation benchmark should be referenced.
10. The differences in Table 2 and 3 are so small that values are not consequential. Are these tables needed?
11. Reference handbook of activation data
12. Balance equation as cause of differences should be described.
13. Fig. 5. Natural nuclide number. This should be element? or Z?
14. Difference in 'time assumption' should be clarified. Why is there such a difference?

Reviewer #2: It has been well established that rigorous nuclear activation calculations are needed for proper construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear fusion reactors. This paper shows the development and validation of the new activation code AMY. It is significance in this paper and the validation results of AMY seem have good agreement with FISPACT-2007. There are some suggested improvements, which should be addressed for this paper.

1. Some grammar errors should be checked and modified by the author.

2. Different programming languages are different in efficiency. To the reviewer's knowledge, FISPACT-2007 is developed by FORTRAN. In this paper, it is not mentioned that which programming language is used to develop the code. Please introduce in a proper section of the manuscript.

3. The approximation order k is 14 to ensure the accuracy of AMY. Maybe adding more description and literature to illustrate it in Section 2.2.

4. In section 2.3, AMY is currently able to calculate the dose rate of these short-lived nuclides by an approximate method to calculate the S_γ. More details and formulas should be added.

5. The dynamic construction method of transmutation chain is showed in this paper. The different of traditional method and the new method should be introduced in Section 3.1.

6. The code developed adaptive order reduction on matrix method. It can reduce the size of the coefficient matrix and improve the efficiency of the activation calculation. In section 4.1, it is recommended to give specific order number of matrix to validate the effectiveness of the method.

7. By using the natural cases, the results of AMY and FISPACT-2007 show a good agreement. Why did the author choose the results of the 44-th irradiation time step and 6-th cooling time step?

回复此楼