Numerical Calculation of Oil Dispersion through the Air Flow Applied to the Inner Surface of Slim Tubes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors conducted extensive studies on the oil dispersion on the inner surface of slim tubes, with both simulation and experiments. The manuscript is also well structures. I have a few suggestions to improve the manuscript:
Introduce what kind of corrosion might happen in the tubes.
If a polyethylene (PE) foam tube was used for the purpose of testing, will that affect the particle or oil adhesion? Please discuss this.
Add units to the tables.
Please revise and resubmit.
Author Response
The authors thank them for their appreciation of the good manuscript structure and for the valuable comments they make to improve the manuscript. All comments have been thoroughly studied and the proposed changes implemented in the revised manuscript. English language and style was revised by natural speaker. I attach a certificate of proofreading in the appendix. Changes are indicated in the revised manuscript in color.
Point-by-point answers:
1/ Introduce what kind of corrosion might happen in the tubes.
Answer:
In the introduction, an expanded explanation of the corrosion load investigation of a particular standard was added. The aim of the authors is to focus on the prospective technique of uniform application of the oil layer to the inner surface of the steel tubes. After even application of the oil layer, the correct resistance to atmospheric corrosion is proven in practice. The process of corrosion of the inner surface of the tubes itself is not under investigation. Protection from atmospheric corrosion in the transport and storage of unused pipes is assumed.
2/ If a polyethylene (PE) foam tube was used for the purpose of testing, will that affect the particle or oil adhesion? Please discuss this.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. A more detailed explanation has been added to Part 3.
3/ Add units to the tables.
Answer:
Units were added to the description of Tables 1-3. Tables 1 - 3 have been clarified.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Line 191: for clarity it might be useful to:
- add "over it's full length" before "at the speed.."
- alter the statement "(bottom view)" to "measured volume fraction scale"
2. Might be beneficial to enlargen the diagram displaying the volume of oil over its full length for both figures 3 and 4 so that the transition of the colour bar from blue to red for the volume of oil displayed can be viewed with more clarity.
3. It is advised that items 1 and 2 highlighted above should also be applied to figures 6, 7 & 9.
4. It would be useful if the projection of the vector field at at distance of 3 m highlighted in figure 10 for the 25 mm diameter at 5.5 m/s and the 35 mm diameter at 5 m/s are shown with the location identified respectively in their respective diagrams displaying the volume of oil over it's full length.
5. Line 302 & 303: It would be useful to elaborate in more detail the reasons why weighting is more favourable for a "Mirelon" than a steel pipe when measuring the oil layer thickness.
6. Line 352: "temperature in the laboratory reached a constant value of 10°C", is this correct? Seems very low as the expected norm is usually 20°C.
7. Line 439: "the parameters of which are given above". No parameters are documented above.
8. Line 471: The values shown in the graph for Figure 17 is said to be downloaded from Table 2. Is this correct as the values shown in Table 2 don't relate to the values shown in the graph?
9. As explained in item 8 above, please check the values shown in the graph of Figures 18 and 19.
10. Line 549: "Table 4" is missing from the text.
11. Contradicting information provided between Lines 564-566.
12. Lines 573-583: The information presented in these lines needs to be rechecked as it seems to be out of sync with the other information presented in Section 4 Discussion.
13. Lines 589-590: Although the resistance of the pipes and the resistance coefficients were briefly touched on in Section 2 on page 2 of 17, no explaination or statement was provided to exclude them from the numerical investigation.
Author Response
The authors thank them for their appreciation of the good manuscript structure and for the valuable comments they make to improve the manuscript. All comments have been thoroughly studied and the proposed changes implemented in the revised manuscript. English language and style was revised by natural speaker. I attach a certificate of proofreading in the appendix. Changes are indicated in the revised manuscript in color.
Point-by-point answers:
1. Line 191: for clarity it might be useful to:
- add "over it's full length" before "at the speed.."
- alter the statement "(bottom view)" to "measured volume fraction scale"
Answer:
We accept the comment. Both terms have been replaced in the text.
2. Might be beneficial to enlargen the diagram displaying the volume of oil over its full length for both figures 3 and 4 so that the transition of the colour bar from blue to red for the volume of oil displayed can be viewed with more clarity.
Answer:
We accept the comment. Images have been improved.
3. It is advised that items 1 and 2 highlighted above should also be applied to figures 6, 7 & 9.
Answer:
We accept the comment. This has also been implemented.
4. It would be useful if the projection of the vector field at at distance of 3 m highlighted in figure 10 for the 25 mm diameter at 5.5 m/s and the 35 mm diameter at 5 m/s are shown with the location identified respectively in their respective diagrams displaying the volume of oil over it's full length.
Answer:
The comment was implemented in Fig. 10.
5. Line 302 & 303: It would be useful to elaborate in more detail the reasons why weighting is more favourable for a "Mirelon" than a steel pipe when measuring the oil layer thickness.
Answer:
We accept the comment. A more detailed description has been added to the text.
6. Line 352: "temperature in the laboratory reached a constant value of 10°C", is this correct? Seems very low as the expected norm is usually 20°C.
Answer:
Yes, the value of 10° C is correct. We did the measurements in the winter (30 December) in a large industrial laboratory that was not heated. It is a dirty oil mist work. A laboratory at 20° C was not available. In our opinion, it is precisely these conditions that are appropriate to the needs of industry.
7. Line 439: "the parameters of which are given above". No parameters are documented above.
Answer:
The calibrated A & D scale parameters were listed above in section 3. Experimental testing of coating by oil dispersion. Specifically, lines 336 and 337 (in the original version).
8. Line 471: The values shown in the graph for Figure 17 is said to be downloaded from Table 2. Is this correct as the values shown in Table 2 don't relate to the values shown in the graph?
Answer:
We apologize for the error. Error fixed.
9. As explained in item 8 above, please check the values shown in the graph of Figures 18 and 19.
Answer:
We also fixed the errors in the description of Figures 18 and 19.
10. Line 549: "Table 4" is missing from the text.
Answer:
The error has been corrected for points 8 and 9. This is Table 3.
11. Contradicting information provided between Lines 564-566.
Answer:
Please explain in more detail. In our opinion, this is not a contradicting information.
12. Lines 573-583: The information presented in these lines needs to be rechecked as it seems to be out of sync with the other information presented in Section 4 Discussion.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. This part has been moved to the introduction.
13. Lines 589-590: Although the resistance of the pipes and the resistance coefficients were briefly touched on in Section 2 on page 2 of 17, no explaination or statement was provided to exclude them from the numerical investigation.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. A more detailed explanation has been added to the text at the Conclusions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all the concerns raised in the review. As for Q11 lines 564-566, there was an oversight on my part as I didn't read the two lines careful and therefore misinterpreted it. Apologies for this.
