Development of a MELCOR Model for LVR-15 Severe Accidents Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work shows the results of a simulation using the MELCOR code to prevent the occurrence of severe accidents in the operation of a nuclear research reactor. Although this work may be very interesting for the public specialized in this topic, there are many things that the authors must explain to improve the understanding of this work. I recommend authors make the following changes:

1. Despite the great importance of this work, this is not clearly reflected in the introduction. I recommend including some of the possible consequences of exceeding the temperature of the fuel element sections compared to normal operational parameters, both structural for the fuel element and the reactor structure, and safety inside the reactor.

2. Since this is a numerical simulation, all operational conditions must be perfectly clear. Inputs, outputs, operating conditions, reactor measurements, heat sources (meat fuel element), and everything else of relevance should be included in the figures and the text. This is valid for figures 1 - 7 and 10.

3. I assume that the MELCOR model is based on phenomenological simulations, but I am not very sure. The authors must include an introduction to the operation of this code and how it is fed back from the initial information of the reactor.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your time and dedication in reviewing our paper. We are sure that your comments and suggestions will help enhance our publication. Please find attached the responses and actions taken regarding your kind comments.

Regards,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In general, the content does not correspond to the title, many descriptions of LVR15: From pages 2 to 8, sou-title 1 to 4; then the fifth and sixth parts are mixed, the methodology is not clear, without highlights of the analysis of the results; finally the conclusion part does not fit. 

2. Most of the abstract is presenting the background of the research on the LVR-15 reactor, and the abstract should be written in three parts: background of the research, methodology, and results.

3. The title of the article writes about the development of the MELCOR model for the LVR-15, while the first sentence of subsection 6 assumes that the MELCOR model was developed, so is this model not yet fully developed? Please exercise discretion in writing descriptions for accuracy.

4. The results of the MELCOR code simulation should not be represented only in a table. And what is the error of the simulation results?

5. A large section of the article describes the basic parameters of the LVR-15, whereas the focus of this article should be on the details of the model built with the MELCOR code and a discussion of the accuracy of the model.

6. Lack of model validation.

7. The conclusion is too hastily written and should summarize the work of the paper, please add.

8. Pictures are not appropriately placed.

9. Some numerations are not formal.

10. The references are insufficient and should be at least more than 15 with some recent five years' citations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are many English grammatical errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your time and dedication in reviewing our paper. We are sure that your comments and suggestions will help enhance our publication. Please find attached the responses and actions taken regarding your kind comments.

Regards,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors covered most of my recommendations. I think the manuscript is in conditions to be accepted. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend using an AI tool to correct minor English aspect of the text.

Author Response

I recommend using an AI tool to correct minor English aspect of the text.

 

English corrected. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Pay attention to the mis en forme, for example: on page 3 the title 3 is better on the following page; on page 10, the figure is better on the same page without quasi the whole page emptied.

2. There are just 9 references, which are not sufficient for an article of 15 pages. 

3. On page 10, Table 2 and Table 3 should be better in the same format. 

4. On page 4, there is a paragraph in italicized typeface.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some English errors identified in the precedent comments are not corrected, please recheck them and the whole text one more time.

Author Response

1. Pay attention to the mis en forme, for example: on page 3 the title 3 is better on the following page; on page 10, the figure is better on the same page without quasi the whole page emptied.

Answer: The editorial team will address the formatting concerns, such as the placement of titles and figures, once the review process is complete. The authors should focus on the content and substance of the paper during this stage.

2. There are just 9 references, which are not sufficient for an article of 15 pages. 

Added. Thank you.

3. On page 10, Table 2 and Table 3 should be better in the same format. 

Corrected.

4. On page 4, there is a paragraph in italicized typeface.

I have reviewed the document carefully, but I could not locate the specific paragraph in italics on page 4 that you mentioned. If you could provide more details about the location or context of this paragraph, I would be happy to take a closer look and provide feedback.