Contribution of Hot-Spot Zone in Decarburization of BOF Steel-Making: Fundamental Analysis Based upon the FactSage-Macro Program
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper describes a dynamic model that simulates the decarburization process in a basic oxygen steelmaking furnace. The model, developed within the thermodynamic software package FactSage, is based on a multi-reactor approach and is mainly employed to evaluate the relative contribution of the hot spot zone and the emulsion zone in the decarburization process.
The topic is interesting. Unfortunately, in its current state, the paper suffers from two important weaknesses:
- An exhaustive literature review with numerous references is presented. However this section is a bit too long and confused. Overall, it lacks of a clear structure/organization which would help highlighting the important results and the originality of the present work. Also, the English syntax needs to be revised in a few instances.
- Overall, the model is presented too briefly, which again makes it difficult to evaluate what the present work brings new with respect to previous works. I believe much more infomation and practical detail are needed on the model (assumptions, reactions accounted for, meaning of the equations taken from reference [50], numerical algorithm...). Also, it is not clear how the Factsage sofware is used (method, variables calculated...)?
Additional comments :
- The contents of sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are very similar, please revise to make it more concise and avoid repetition.
- The variables in relations A to H should be defined inside the manuscript, not in an appendix.
- Please correct the numbering of the appendices and the legend of the figure in the appendix 3.
- Appendix 3 is not sufficient to understand how the expressions F, G and H were derived. Please provide more details.
- Line 248: the various material quantities should be expressed in kg (not in kg/s).
- Some data given in Table 1 are not totally consistent with the data given in Item 2 of "Model assumptions".
- Please specify all details regarding the temporal variations (if any) of the blowing parameters (O2 flow rate, lance height, bottom stirring) considered for the simulation results presented in the paper.
- Line 294: The authors suggest that an increase of the metal fraction coming to the hot spot zone (high inialpha) leads to a reduction of FeO formation. More comments on this statement, which seems counter-intuitive, would be helpful.
- Figure 3: It would be interesting to show also the temperature in the emulsion zone.
- Figure 5: Please give the value of inialpha considered.
- Line 405: Please clarify "the carbon removal trajectory follows the lower path".
- Section 4: Some comments on how the obtained results compare to results reported in previous works would be helpful at this point.
Author Response
Dear sir,
I am submitting answer of reviewer comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Factsage Macro is a relatively mature method at present, and there are many researches on the application of Factsage Macro in steel manufacturing process. One of the examples in the software is about the decarbonization reaction of steel making. Please describe as much as possible how innovative and progressive your research is.
- Only with the calculation results, this study did not have the experimental data. Please explain how you can prove to be consistent with the actual production process. It would be better to supplement the corresponding experimental data as support.
- The conclusion are mostly known to us. It is too long. Please summarize the results based on the current research carefully.
Author Response
Dear sir,
I am submitting answer of reviewer comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
please see Attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response of comments has been submitted
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am afraid that there is no attempt to address (at least partially) the two main weaknesses of the paper pointed out in my first report, regarding the literature review and the description of the model.
Author Response
Dear sir,
I am submitting all comments with answears
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
Reasponse of comments have been submitted
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
