search

arfc / 2018-bae-benchmark

Benchmark paper for Cyclus
GNU General Public License v3.0
1 stars 2 forks source link

Review of benchmark paper #1

Closed jbae11 closed 5 years ago

jbae11 commented 6 years ago

The benchmark paper is ready for review.

This paper will be prepared for Annals of Nuclear Energy appendix submission ( not full paper)

This issue can be closed when the results of the review have been reflected to the paper.

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

See the attached. Sorry it's especially scribbly this time. If anything is unclear, please don't hesitate to let me know! 2018-bae-benchmark.pdf

jbae11 commented 5 years ago

@katyhuff Thank you for taking your time reviewing the paper. I made the edits and pushed to the repo.

For the LWR cycle time, I followed Eva's advice on the cycle time and core mass, since Eva had the same issue with ORION. I learned that the intention with the 4.5 batches and 1 year cycle time in the benchmark was for the continuous-fuel-flow codes to model 1.5 year cycle time, 3 batches reactor.

For changing the Cycamore reactor, I do understand it is a bad move, but without it the results don't quite hold much significance. I do agree that the way Cyclus does it is more correct, and maybe that can be added to the paper.