Shielding Effect of Rubber Disbond on DCVG Signal Magnitude for Coating Defect Detection in Pipes Buried in Soil: A Simulation Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should consider simplifying some of the overly technical sections to make the findings more accessible to readers who are not well-versed in DCVG.

The authors should consider providing some more explanations in the governing equations section before presenting the mathematical formulae.

The authors should consider providing some numerical tables summarizing key results for ease of comparison.

The authors should consider providing more details about how the findings of the study compare with results from previous studies.

The authors should provide more details about the possible experimental validation of the simulation results.

The authors should consider providing more discussion about other electrochemical effects and shielding. Currently, the impact of shielding is discussed primarily in terms of the DCVG signal magnitude.

The authors should consider providing more details about influencing factors other than defect size, soil resistivity, and applied voltage.

The authors should consider providing more details about potential real-world challenges and their impact on detection accuracy, for e.g., environmental noise and interference.

The authors should consider providing more details about the practical implications of the results in real-world pipeline inspections.

The authors should provide more details about the limitations of the study and potential areas of future research.

 

 

Author Response

I attached the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should consider the following points to improve their paper:

The methodology is well-structured, but lacks details on the selection criteria for soil resistivity values (1–19 kΩ·cm) and their practical relevance. How do these values compare to real-world soil conditions typically encountered in buried pipeline systems?

The description of the polarization behavior experiment lacks details on statistical validation. Providing error estimates or sensitivity analysis results is needed.

The discussion on the physical implications of lower DCVG signals in shielded defects needs more depth. Specifically, linking the results to real-world case studies or empirical findings should add practical significance.

It would be beneficial to compare the findings with other detection methods beyond DCVG, such as current interruption techniques or electromagnetic sensing.

The study primarily focuses on the effects of applied voltage and detection electrode distance but does not explore the influence of environmental factors like soil moisture variation and temperature. A brief discussion on these variables should be added.

The conclusion summarizes key findings well but should offer a clearer statement on the limitations of the study and potential future research directions. For instance, experimental validation of the simulation model would be a valuable next step.

Author Response

I attached the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides a valuable simulation-based analysis of the shielding effect caused by rubber disbondment on DCVG signal magnitude in buried pipelines, addressing a critical gap in detecting coating defects under electrically shielded conditions. The systematic exploration of parameters such as soil resistivity, defect size, and electrode spacing offers practical insights for optimizing inspection protocols. While the methodology is robust and the results are well-supported by data, several areas require clarification and enhancement to strengthen the paper's rigor and applicability.

1. Include experimental validation (e.g., lab/field data) or comparisons with existing literature to verify the simulation accuracy, particularly for polarization behavior integration.
2. Clarify how polarization curves (Fig. 3) are translated into material parameters for COMSOL inputs, ensuring reproducibility.
3. Refine figures (e.g., Fig. 5, 21) by adding axis labels, annotations, and explicit descriptions of key regions to improve interpretability.
4. Address the basis for the 0.5 mV detection threshold (e.g., error margins, repeated simulations) to justify its universality.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Standardize terms (e.g., use “disbondment” consistently) and rectify formatting issues in references (e.g., incomplete conference names, broken DOIs).

Author Response

I attached the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has been revised and is now acceptable