Numerical Predictions of Uniform CO2 Corrosion in Complex Fluid Domains Using Low Reynolds Number Models
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper develops a code for prediction of corrosion rate in pipeline. It is the continuation of previous work done on the by other authors and the articles authors. The paper is well written but about totally theoretical. The comparison with experimental data are performed using data of their previous article or literature data. The paper is well written, and the theoretical background well described.
Despite the lack of complete originality of the work and of an experimental work. The article can be published, if the editor believes that the deficiencies highlighted not overable. My judgement is positive and the quality of the presentation more than enough.
One suggestion is to complete it with an experimental work demonstrating the effectiveness of the code. This could definitely increase the impact of work
Author Response
Thanks for the suggestions.
This work proves high efficiency of CFD corrosion similations.
We have some experimental data on CO2 aqueous corrosion with high content of Cl-. The work will be presented in next 6 month.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is focused on the prediction of corrosion rate of carbon steel pipes using a CFD method. The topic is very interesting and the numerical approach looks promising. However, the chemical and electrochemical phenomena are not always well inserted in the equation. Therefore, I suggest to review the manuscript according to the following observations.
As a general comment the first part of the paper is largely coincident with what reported in ref 13. The authors cite the reference but in spite of that this makes this work less novel.
There are a few mistakes.
Check H2CO3 dissociation in table 3.
The electrode potential units must be specified (V vs SHE?)
Please check stoichiometry of H2CO3 reduction in table 4.
It is not clear the meaning of the boundary condition of section 2.6.
It is not clearly explained the change in the system geometry in section 3.2.
Finally, what is the difference between the CFD models used by the authors and those emplyed in ref. 13? In there any improvement?
Author Response
Thanks for detailed suggestions.
Q1: As a general comment the first part of the paper is largely coincident with what reported in ref 13. The authors cite the reference but in spite of that this makes this work less novel. Finally, what is the difference between the CFD models used by the authors and those emplyed in ref. 13? In there any improvement?
A1; Srdjan Nesic firstly proposed a numerical method of CO2 corrosion. We follow and extend his work. However, his work can only be applied to 1D domain ( pipe flow, rotating cylinder system) since some experimetal coefficients in his model depends on !D domain, for example , turbulent diffusivity, liquid boundary layer thickness. Our work can be applied to 3d domains.
Q2. Check H2CO3 dissociation in table 3. The electrode potential units must be specified (V vs SHE?) Please check stoichiometry of H2CO3 reduction in table 4.
A2: We correct the mistakes and mark the sentences with yellow color. Thanks.
Q3: It is not clear the meaning of the boundary condition of section 2.6.
A3: We do not clearly statement the charge balance rule. now the sentence is revised. (line 173-174)
Q4: It is not clearly explained the change in the system geometry in section 3.2.
A4: We insert a sentence to declare the change. (line 266-267)
Reviewer 3 Report
Good paper, even if the results show, that modelling is still away from the actual measurement results, which have a wide spread too.
A language change within the text is recommended: page 10, line 266: change "against of " by "opposite to"
Author Response
Thanks for your detailed guidlines.
Q1 : A language change within the text is recommended: page 10, line 266: change "against of " by "opposite to"
A2: we correct it.
Fix: The flat with a width of 40mm and a length of 20mm is opposite to the nozzle. (line 268)
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has bben sufficiently improved according to the reviewer suggestions.
