Reconstruction of Three-Dimensional Dynamic Wind-Turbine Wake Wind Fields with Volumetric Long-Range Wind Doppler LiDAR Measurements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented a reconstruction method for the wake wind field of a wind turbine. As the authors pointed, to know about wake is very important either because of the induced loads or because the power generation, related with the distribution of the wind turbines. This is a very nice concise paper on a very interesting topic. The methodology is clearly presented and the results are soundness and present an advance from previous studies.
Author Response
AUTHORS RESPONSE
RC: The authors presented a reconstruction method for the wake wind field of a wind turbine. As the authors pointed, to know about wake is very important either because of the induced loads or because the power generation, related with the distribution of the wind turbines. This is a very nice concise paper on a very interesting topic. The methodology is clearly presented and the results are soundness and present an advance from previous studies.
AR: We thank the reviewer very much for the invested work and time. We are happy that it was recommended for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
The presented manuscript describes a novel reconstruction method of the high-resolution 4D wake wind field based on virtual PPI and RHI lidar scans in a LES model environment with limited temporal and spatial resolution. It describes the method and performs a sensitivity analysis with respect to the angular velocities applied during the PPI and RHI scanning patterns. This information is highly relevant for the future planning of lidar based wake measurement campaigns and the corresponding data interpretation, in particular with focus on uncertainty estimates. This are highly relevant areas in remote sensing that fit the scope of the journal very well and I therefore would like to see this study published here.
The basic structure of the manuscript is ok and the methods used are in general adequately described, there are however a few unclear passages (see under specific comments) that require further elaboration. The quality of the figures is average for a few, but clearly below average and publication standard for most of them. Main issue here are poor basic resolution, unfavorable choice of colors, small size, and in several occasions legends in a font size that makes them unreadable at all. My detailed comments can be found in the listing below.
Another point of major criticism is the English language that will require considerable efforts to make the manuscript publishable, and I highly recommend the involvement of a native English speaker in this task. Some general critics in this context are related to an often more prosaic and scientifically inaccurate writing style, grammatically wrong/incomplete sentences (e.g. l.71-73; 163-164; l. 343-345; 476-477; ), rather long, complicated and thus hard to read sentences (e.g. lines 91-95, 109-112, to name a few), and unusual/inappropriate wording (e.g. “quantise” instead of “quantify”; “wherefore”; “representability” instead of “representativeness”, see more in the minor comments).
Specific and minor comments:
Line 11: “…of a wind turbine comprehensively is presented”; grammatically incorrect; I suggest to remove “comprehensively” here
Line 38: insert comma before “resulting”
Line 49: insert comma after “Actually”
Line 49/50: “wider/smeared over” is not really a scientific sound expression. Please rephrase
Line 50: insert comma after “narrow”
Line 52: replace “do” by “does”
Line 61: remove extra space after reference [9]
Line 62/63: change beginning of the sentence to “While air parcels within the DWM…..”
Line 69/70: either “the coupling of….. with” or “the coupling between…. and”
Line 70: replace “provide” by “provides”
Line 71-73: the sentence is grammatically incorrect; Could be solved by ending a first sentence after “expensive” and then starting a second new sentence with “In addition requires……..”
Line 81: I suggest to replace “can be seen” by “has to be seen”
Line 84: I feel “quantise” is not the correct verb here, do you mean “quantify”
Line 90: what is “full filed measured dynamic wake behavior”?
Line 107/108: finding a compromise in parameterization between data quality, temporal and spatial resolution; I think I understand what you want to say here, but the formulation is very unclear and maybe even misleading; this is for sure no “parameterization”
Line 121: if you meant in line 90 full field, then you are inconsistent here with the hyphen!
Line 162: should “coerced” read “forced”?
Line 163/164: sentence again grammatically incorrect: do you mean “ … we are restrained to the analysis of the results……”
Line 168: move (hHH) before “of”
Line 193/194: measurement points were set every 7 m; please mention what the resolution of the lidar along the beam was (I assume either 25 m or 50 m, depending on the measurement mode); the 7 m mentioned here give the illusion of a higher resolution than you really can reach; discuss this in the text
Line 193-196: from the description I really don’t get it if the RHI and PPI scans are only performed in the corresponding central plane (as depicted in fig 1) or if you do multiple PPI scans with varying elevation and multiple RHI scans with varying azimuth; please clarify in the text
Line 202: replace “what” by “that”
Line 207: insert “the” before “measurement grid”
Line 208: insert “the” before “later reconstruction”
Line 212: replace “frequencies” by “frequency”
Line 231-238: this is a really poorly phrased paragraph with a lot of inaccuracies and an often very unscientific, prosaic writing style; please redo properly; some main points:
Line 231: insert “the” before “”physical
Line 231/232: what do you mean with “physical behavior”, be more specific!
Line 234: “So it is here;” not really scientific writing
Line 258: remove “time” as first word in the line
Figure 2: a color bar for the wake velocity deficit is missing; in addition you should consider to indicate the corresponding axes as in fig. 1
Line 283: “wherefore” is a very old/not widely used wording
Figure 3: figure is not the best quality; in particular the colors are not very clear; e.g. dark blue looks much more black!
Line 334: insert “the” before “optimisation”
Line 343 and 345: grammatically incorrect use of “respectively”
Figure 4: poor graphic quality; has to be improved
Line 368: insert blank before “can”
Equation 11: too small characters, please increase the font size to match the other equations
Line 406: two times to large empty space between “equation” and “(10)”
Equations 19-21: too small characters, please increase the font size to match the other equations
Line 476/477: incomplete sentence!
Line 479: insert comma after “following”
Line 500-506: I do not get at all how you determine the artificially added data from the given description; over which distance in c-direction are you averaging; or are you averaging over time, or both; please rewrite correspondingly
Figure 7: you are wasting a lot of unused space with the two very small sub-plots; I suggest to increase them to more or less fit the width of the text
Line 518: “data situation” is again rather unspecific; maybe better “data coverage” or “data availability”
Line 538: “representability” is not an English word; use “representativeness”
Line 546: I think “functioning” is not the right verb here; do you mean “principle of operation”
Figures 8 and 9: very poor quality/resolution; legends are not readable at all; my suggestion for the legend issue; remove it from the sub-plots and place one with distinctly increased font-size outside the 4 subplots
Line 606: replace “parts” by “part”
Figure 10: increase the size of the figures!; there is a lot of dead white space that should be used to present the information ; you can at least double the colored area by also removing the y-axis naming for (b) and (c)
Line 623: remove extra space before “Figure 11c”
Figure 11: Caption, line 2: replace “differences of” by “differences between”;
Figure 11, panel (c): is the marked, comma-shaped structure that is clearly visible for D = 7,8,9 still a signature of the turbine tower wake? And if so, is this then an (unwanted/undesired) effect of your algorithm?
Line 664: insert comma after “Thus”
Line 702-708: you focus here on the average time error as measure for the dynamic reconstruction quality, which is per se fine. But is this really an important parameter when it comes to subsequent load calculations? Here I feel the amplitude and frequency of occurrence would be much more important. You should at least include corresponding considerations in your discussion
Figure 15: poor printing quality; legend by far to small!
Line 739: I agree that it is difficult/at the moment impossible to provide the measurements for a holistic validation; but you should mention and discuss the possibility to do validations based on statistics you can derive from point measurements or your measurements along RHI or PPI planes;
Line 774: missing “as” after “seen”?
Line 792/793: grammatically incorrect/incomplete sentence
Reference list: inconsistent way of referencing; Journals abbreviated/not abbreviated; e.g. ref 25 has a completely different way of presenting vol/num/pages; number 9 provides volume and pages in different format, and many more!
References partially incomplete; e.g. 32 full name of conference; days of conference
Author Response
AUTHORS RESPONSE
General comments:
The presented manuscript describes a novel reconstruction method of the high-resolution 4D wake wind field based on virtual PPI and RHI lidar scans in a LES model environment with limited temporal and spatial resolution. It describes the method and performs a sensitivity analysis with respect to the angular velocities applied during the PPI and RHI scanning patterns. This information is highly relevant for the future planning of lidar based wake measurement campaigns and the corresponding data interpretation, in particular with focus on uncertainty estimates. This are highly relevant areas in remote sensing that fit the scope of the journal very well and I therefore would like to see this study published here.
RC: The basic structure of the manuscript is ok and the methods used are in general adequately described, there are however a few unclear passages (see under specific comments) that require further elaboration. The quality of the figures is average for a few, but clearly below average and publication standard for most of them. Main issue here are poor basic resolution, unfavorable choice of colors, small size, and in several occasions legends in a font size that makes them unreadable at all. My detailed comments can be found in the listing below.
Another point of major criticism is the English language that will require considerable efforts to make the manuscript publishable, and I highly recommend the involvement of a native English speaker in this task. Some general critics in this context are related to an often more prosaic and scientifically inaccurate writing style, grammatically wrong/incomplete sentences (e.g. l.71-73; 163-164; l. 343-345; 476-477; ), rather long, complicated and thus hard to read sentences (e.g. lines 91-95, 109-112, to name a few), and unusual/inappropriate wording (e.g. “quantise” instead of “quantify”; “wherefore”; “representability” instead of “representativeness”, see more in the minor comments).
AR: We thank the reviewer for the time invested, and the meticulous effort put into improving this manuscript. We have taken the comments as an opportunity to elaborate on the content of the paper. Explicitly, we would like to thank you for the precise linguistic improvement suggestions. The revised version of the paper was proofread by an agency after the review to ensure better readability, so specific changes to wording may no longer be reflected as described in the authors response (AR).
Specific and minor comments:
RC 1: Line 11: “…of a wind turbine comprehensively is presented”; grammatically incorrect; I suggest to remove “comprehensively” here
AR 1: We removed „comprehensively“.
RC 2: Line 38: insert comma before “resulting”
AR 2: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 3: Line 49: insert comma after “Actually”
AR 3: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 4: Line 49/50: “wider/smeared over” is not really a scientific sound expression. Please rephrase
AR 4: We amended the expression to „wider and smooth“.
RC 5: Line 50: insert comma after “narrow”
AR 5: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 6: Line 52: replace “do” by “does”
AR 6: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 7: Line 61: remove extra space after reference [9]
AR 7: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 8: Line 62/63: change beginning of the sentence to “While air parcels within the DWM…..”
AR 8: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 9: Line 69/70: either “the coupling of….. with” or “the coupling between…. and”
AR 9: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 10: Line 70: replace “provide” by “provides”
AR 10: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 11: Line 71-73: the sentence is grammatically incorrect; Could be solved by ending a first sentence after “expensive” and then starting a second new sentence with “In addition requires……..”
AR 11: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 12: Line 81: I suggest to replace “can be seen” by “has to be seen”
AR 12: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 13: Line 84: I feel “quantise” is not the correct verb here, do you mean “quantify”
AR 13: Actually, we meant quantise, the numerical capture of the effect. From our point of view, qualification takes place after quantisation. However, to ensure a better understanding, we change the verb according to the proposal to „quantify“.
RC 14: Line 90: what is “full filed measured dynamic wake behavior”?
AR 14: There was a typo, not "filed", but "field" it must be called. With "full-field measured dynamic wake behaviour" we refer to dynamics of the wake, which were not simulated but measured at actual turbines. These included direct characteristics of the flow as the turbulence characteristics, as well as derived values like the velocity deficit, wake meandering in the form of the wake trajectories and their statistics and deterministic dynamics.
RC 15: Line 107/108: finding a compromise in parameterization between data quality, temporal and spatial resolution; I think I understand what you want to say here, but the formulation is very unclear and maybe even misleading; this is for sure no “parameterization”
AR 15: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We refer with this sentence to our experience with LiDAR measurements. We have changed the sentence to state that the correct parameterization can be aimed at a compromise in spatial, temporal and data quality. Of course, there is a physical limit of measurability, but the adequate choice of hardware and software settings are crucial for specific measurement quality of a specific process to be mapped (including the atmospheric situation).
RC 16: Line 121: if you meant in line 90 full field, then you are inconsistent here with the hyphen!
AR 16: Thank you for pointing this out. We now have a consistent notation in the manuscript.
RC 17: Line 162: should “coerced” read “forced”?
AR 17: Yes. Since we are not native speakers, this word shoots us appropriately.
RC 18: Line 163/164: sentence again grammatically incorrect: do you mean “ … we are restrained to the analysis of the results……”
AR 18: We thank the reviewer for his watchful eye and have changed the sentence according to the proposal.
RC 19: Line 168: move (hHH) before “of”
AR 19: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 20: Line 193/194: measurement points were set every 7 m; please mention what the resolution of the lidar along the beam was (I assume either 25 m or 50 m, depending on the measurement mode); the 7 m mentioned here give the illusion of a higher resolution than you really can reach; discuss this in the text
AR 20: We would like to thank the reviewer for the possibility to better explain this fact.
RC 21: Line 193-196: from the description I really don’t get it if the RHI and PPI scans are only performed in the corresponding central plane (as depicted in fig 1) or if you do multiple PPI scans with varying elevation and multiple RHI scans with varying azimuth; please clarify in the text
AR 21: We thank you for the comment and have revised the passage to point out that each LiDAR performed only one repeating trajectory.
RC 22: Line 202: replace “what” by “that”
AR 22: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 23: Line 207: insert “the” before “measurement grid”
AR 23: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 24: Line 208: insert “the” before “later reconstruction”
AR 24: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 25: Line 212: replace “frequencies” by “frequency”
AR 25: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 26: Line 231-238: this is a really poorly phrased paragraph with a lot of inaccuracies and an often very unscientific, prosaic writing style; please redo properly; some main points:
AR 26: At this point, it was our interest to express unequivocally that model-based reconstruction per se involves a reduction of complexity. Therefore, the resulting methodology does not claim to be absolute or complete. We acknowledge the opinion of the reviewer to limit the manuscript to the scientific core and have shorten the introduction of Section 3 and deleted the physical-didactic part.
RC 27: Line 231: insert “the” before “”physical
AR 27: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 28: Line 231/232: what do you mean with “physical behavior”, be more specific!
AR 28: By this, we mean a general consideration of physical processes, which may or may not be captured by model assumptions. For example, it is not possible to adequately map the turbulent instantaneous wind speed deficit with a Gaussian curve fitting, whereas this fitting approach is adequate for time-averaged wake profiles.
RC 29: Line 234: “So it is here;” not really scientific writing
AR 29: We removed the corresponding sentence.
RC 30: Line 258: remove “time” as first word in the line
AR 30: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 31: Figure 2: a color bar for the wake velocity deficit is missing; in addition you should consider to indicate the corresponding axes as in fig. 1
AR 31: We thank you for the comment and have added both a coordinate system and a colorbar.
RC 32: Line 283: “wherefore” is a very old/not widely used wording
AR 32: We correspond to the reviewers comment and change "wherefore" to the more modern word „thus“.
RC 33: Figure 3: figure is not the best quality; in particular the colors are not very clear; e.g. dark blue looks much more black!
AR 33: With the colour choice of the dark and the light blue, we want to represent the relationship of the information to be represented. Dark blue as LiDAR measurement, light blue as propagated LiDAR measurement. Apart from the choice of colour, we cannot read from the comment how the figure can be further improved.
RC 34: Line 334: insert “the” before “optimisation”
AR 34: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 35: Line 343 and 345: grammatically incorrect use of “respectively”
AR 35: We thank you for the linguistic comment and change the appropriate word for better readability.
RC 36: Figure 4: poor graphic quality; has to be improved
AR 36: We would like to thank you for your comment on Figure 4 and apologize for the poor resolution of Figure 4. There was a conversion to Word, which we fixed. Beside the resolution we could not read from the comment how to improve the figure. Does the reviewer mean the color choice, the size, the general understanding,...?
RC 37: Line 368: insert blank before “can”
AR 37: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 38: Equation 11: too small characters, please increase the font size to match the other equations
AR 38: We have used the template provided by RemoteSensing, unfortunately the possibilities to create formulas in Word are quite limited. We tried to make the size of the formulas the same. If we didn't succeed, the journal will take care of the correct formatting.
RC 39: Line 406: two times to large empty space between “equation” and “(10)”
AR 39: The formatting error has been fixed.
RC 40: Equations 19-21: too small characters, please increase the font size to match the other equations
AR 40: Same as AR 38.
RC 41: Line 476/477: incomplete sentence!
AR 41: We thank for the comment and have completed the sentence.
RC 42: Line 479: insert comma after “following”
AR 42: We have amended the wording of the passage referred to following the Reviewers proposal.
RC 43: Line 500-506: I do not get at all how you determine the artificially added data from the given description; over which distance in c-direction are you averaging; or are you averaging over time, or both; please rewrite correspondingly
AR 43: We thank the reviewer for commenting that the explanation of artificial data extension needs further revision. We have revised the corresponding passage and hope to have formulated it more clearly and unambiguously.
RC 44: Figure 7: you are wasting a lot of unused space with the two very small sub-plots; I suggest to increase them to more or less fit the width of the text
AR 44: We have enlarged the pictures to use the space more efficiently.
RC 45: Line 518: “data situation” is again rather unspecific; maybe better “data coverage” or “data availability”
AR 45: We changed according the reviewers suggestion.
RC 46: Line 538: “representability” is not an English word; use “representativeness”
AR 46: We changed according the reviewers suggestion.
RC 47: Line 546: I think “functioning” is not the right verb here; do you mean “principle of operation”
AR 47: We changed the word to ‚operating principle‘.
RC 48: Figures 8 and 9: very poor quality/resolution; legends are not readable at all; my suggestion for the legend issue; remove it from the sub-plots and place one with distinctly increased font-size outside the 4 subplots
AR 48: We would like to thank you for your constructive comment and have introduced a horizontal external legend for Figure 8 and for Figure 9 for the wake center and for the wake width respectively.
RC 49: Line 606: replace “parts” by “part”.
AR 49: We changed according the reviewers suggestion.
RC 50: Figure 10: increase the size of the figures!; there is a lot of dead white space that should be used to present the information ; you can at least double the colored area by also removing the y-axis naming for (b) and (c)
AR 50: We thank you for your constructive comment and have enlarged the subplots and removed the vertical labels of (b) and (c).
RC 51: Line 623: remove extra space before “Figure 11c”
AR 51: We changed according the reviewers suggestion.
RC 52: Figure 11: Caption, line 2: replace “differences of” by “differences between”;
AR 52: We changed according the reviewers suggestion.
RC 53: Figure 11, panel (c): is the marked, comma-shaped structure that is clearly visible for D = 7,8,9 still a signature of the turbine tower wake? And if so, is this then an (unwanted/undesired) effect of your algorithm?
AR 53: As far as we have analysed the data and based on our experience with wakes, we can assume that at distances of >7D, the tower shadow is no longer identifiable. We explain the deviation as a result of the wake tracking. In the videos S1.i and S2.i it can be seen that from a distance of about 5-6D the wake flow begins to form 'deficit bubbles' which detach from the homogeneous structure; stronger in the vertical visualisation than in the horizontal. This detachment makes it difficult for an integral tracking method as the used Gaussian curve fitting to map this behaviour accordingly. The most reasonable solution would be to use a wake-tracking system, which can map the formation of a puff, from an appropriate distance. We are thinking of a particle-based method reciprocal to Trujillo's EDPM [1].
[1] Trujillo, J. J., Large scale dynamics of wind turbine wakes, PhD thesis, University of Oldenburg, 2018
RC 54: Line 664: insert comma after “Thus”
AR 54: We changed according the reviewers suggestion.
RC 55: Line 702-708: you focus here on the average time error as measure for the dynamic reconstruction quality, which is per se fine. But is this really an important parameter when it comes to subsequent load calculations? Here I feel the amplitude and frequency of occurrence would be much more important. You should at least include corresponding considerations in your discussion
AR 55: We have added a paragraph that describes the mean temporal error as a pragmatic measure of qualification in which changes in the dynamics of time series and spectral mapping are included. To what extent this measure is suitable must be evaluated in subsequent studies together with load simulations.
RC 56: Figure 15: poor printing quality; legend by far to small!
AR 56: We have revised Figure 15, enlarged the legend and placed it outside of the plot.
RC 57: Line 739: I agree that it is difficult/at the moment impossible to provide the measurements for a holistic validation; but you should mention and discuss the possibility to do validations based on statistics you can derive from point measurements or your measurements along RHI or PPI planes;
RC 58: We hope to meet the reviewer's comment by addressing the possibility of a conditional evaluation in the discussion.
RC 58: Line 774: missing “as” after “seen”?
AR 58: We changed according the reviewers suggestion.
RC 59: Line 792/793: grammatically incorrect/incomplete sentence
AR 59: We have fixed the word error and revised the sentence.
RC 60: Reference list: inconsistent way of referencing; Journals abbreviated/not abbreviated; e.g. ref 25 has a completely different way of presenting vol/num/pages; number 9 provides volume and pages in different format, and many more!
References partially incomplete; e.g. 32 full name of conference; days of conference
AR 60: We thank you for the formal comment and have revised the references in terms of consistency.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript attempts to reconstruct turbine wakes from LIDAR measurements and statistical models and compare these to LES output. The manuscript has a merit to be published, but requires some more effort. First, I would like to point out that the writing and organization of the manuscript warrant a serious revisit. Issues like:
Abstract Line 11: “is comprehensively presented” instead of “comprehensively is presented”
Line 190: sentence ends with “and”
Line 263: “the” instead of “thr”
Line 466: “by”
are not professional in a scientific manuscript.
More importantly, while I appreciate the effort, it seems the work is largely based on attempting to rectify potential issues with LiDar rather than a method to reconstruct turbine wakes. Additionally, the performance of PALM was not discussed properly.
1) What subgrid scale model was used?
2) How does PALM handle the drag terms in the momentum equations?
Author Response
AUTHORS RESPONSE
RC: The manuscript attempts to reconstruct turbine wakes from LIDAR measurements and statistical models and compare these to LES output. The manuscript has a merit to be published, but requires some more effort. First, I would like to point out that the writing and organization of the manuscript warrant a serious revisit.
AR: We thank the reviewer for the work and time invested to improve the manuscript and appreciate the comments of the reviewer. We revised the manuscript accordingly. Due to the comments of the language, the new version of the paper has been edited by a proofreading agency.
RC 1: Abstract Line 11: “is comprehensively presented” instead of “comprehensively is presented”
AR 2: We thank you for the note and have revised the position.
RC 2: Line 190: sentence ends with “and”
AR 2: The incomplete setence has been revised and is now complete.
RC 3: Line 263: “the” instead of “thr”
AR 3: The typo has been revised.
RC 4: Line 466: “by”
AR 4: The typo has been revised.
RC 5: More importantly, while I appreciate the effort, it seems the work is largely based on attempting to rectify potential issues with LiDar rather than a method to reconstruct turbine wakes. Additionally, the performance of PALM was not discussed properly.
AR 5: As described in the introduction, we see the need for a reconstruction method based on free-field measurements. One of the most promising measuring instruments today is the LiDAR, which is why the paper does not exclusively deal with the reconstruction method but also with LiDAR issues. The parameter study shall show how comparable measurements can be carried out and how sensitive the method reacts to different measuring parameters. For us, this work represents a start on how dynamic 3D1C wind fields can be reconstructed from volumetric LiDAR measurements - which are increasingly used in research. We do not claim the exclusivity to address LiDAR topics rather than a reconstruction method, but we felt constrained to present both together in the context of the current reconstruction possibilities with remote sensing instruments.
RC 5.1: What sub-grid scale model was used?
AR 5.2: We have added a corresponding sentence referring to the sub-grid model. Within PALM, the sub-grid turbulence is modelled with a 1.5th order closure model, according to Deardorff [1].
RC 5.2: How does PALM handle the drag terms in the momentum equations?
AR 5.2: We understand that, depending on the parameterization, LES results can vary considerably and therefore understand the reviewers' strong interest in generating LES data. However, as these are not the main focus of the manuscript, we ask for your understanding that an exact description goes beyond the scope of this paper. We have therefore inserted a paragraph referring to the work of our colleague Bromm et al. [2], whose previous work and parameterization was used to generate the LES.
[1] Deardorff J. Stratocumulus-capped mixed layers derived from a three-dimensional model. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 1980, 18, 495-527,doi: 10.1007/BF00119502
[2] Bromm, M.; Vollmer, L.; Kühn, M., Numerical investigation of wind turbine wake development in directionally sheared inflow. Wind Energy 2017, 20 (3), 381-395, doi: 10.1002/we.2010.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The quality of the manuscript has considerably improved. The figures are now of appropriate quality for publication. However, there are still quite some Language issues that have to be addressed.
I have now spent again several hours to read through and correct the first 300 lines(!!!) and have already a long list of issues:
Line 53: insert “the” before “meandering” at the beginning of the line
Line 71: insert “the” before “representation”
Line 72: insert “the” before “simulation”
Line 72: replace “requires” by “require”
Line 75: insert comma before “as”
Line 79: replace “turbines” by “turbine”
Line 81: I suggest to replace “must be” by “is”
Line 91: insert “for” before “full-field”
Line 93: with the “and” the sentence is grammatically incorrect
Line 104: better “behind two turbines” instead of “of two turbines”
Line 109: one “used” to much!
Line 110-113: complicated and hard to understand sentence
Line 116: not clear what “on average temporally” really means here;
Line 142: what is a “scan containing time shift”
Line 146: insert “the” before “reconstruction”
Line 156: insert “the” before “measurement setup”
Line 158: insert “on” after “details”
Line 166: insert “on” before “May”
Line 168: insert “not” or “beyond” before “the focus”
Line 187: replace “Because” by “Due to” or “Caused by”
Line 210/211: you have either to delete the “Because” in the beginning of the sentence, or the “as” after the comma in line 211!
Line 213: replace “trajectory measurement grid spatial resolution” by “the spatial resolution of the trajectory measurement” (I would even suggest to remove trajectory here!)
Line 222: insert “a” before ”total”
Line 229: remove comma after “in total” and place it before “representing”
Line 241: “shows” is here more appropriate than “demonstrates”
Line 262: better “applied” than “used”
Line 266: what is a “deficit template”
Line 285: “u0” is not the turbulence intensity, I would expect “TI” or similar in this parenthesis
Line 290: insert “in” before “table 1”
Many of them should have been detected by the authors in a final internal proof reading of the text. As I see it not as my task to do this proof reading as reviewer, I ask the authors (and the editors!) to provide me with a correspondingly quality checked Version for my final evaluation
Author Response
AUTHORS RESPONSE
General comments:
The quality of the manuscript has considerably improved. The figures are now of appropriate quality for publication. However, there are still quite some Language issues that have to be addressed.
I have now spent again several hours to read through and correct the first 300 lines(!!!) and have already a long list of issues.
RC 1: Line 53: insert “the” before “meandering” at the beginning of the line
AR 1: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 2: Line 71: insert “the” before “representation”
AR 2: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 3: Line 72: insert “the” before “simulation”
AR 3: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 4: Line 72: replace “requires” by “require”
AR 4: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 5: Line 75: insert comma before “as”
AR 5: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 6: Line 79: replace “turbines” by “turbine”
AR 6: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 7: Line 81: I suggest to replace “must be” by “is”
AR 7: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 8: Line 91: insert “for” before “full-field”
AR 8: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 9: Line 93: with the “and” the sentence is grammatically incorrect
AR 9: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 10: Line 104: better “behind two turbines” instead of “of two turbines”
AR 10: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 11: Line 109: one “used” to much!
AR 11: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 12: Line 110-113: complicated and hard to understand sentence
AR 12: We are not sure how the clarity of the text can be improved, as it is only an enumeration.
RC 13: Line 116: not clear what “on average temporally” really means here;
AR 13: We amended the passage referred by adding the time interval.
RC 14: Line 142: what is a “scan containing time shift”
AR 14: The exact meaning and correction is explained in Section 3 and at this point too extensive.
RC 15: Line 146: insert “the” before “reconstruction”
AR 15: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 16: Line 156: insert “the” before “measurement setup”
AR 16: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 17: Line 158: insert “on” after “details”
AR 17: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 18: Line 166: insert “on” before “May”
AR 18: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 19: Line 168: insert “not” or “beyond” before “the focus”
AR 19: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 20: Line 187: replace “Because” by “Due to” or “Caused by”
AR 20: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 21: Line 210/211: you have either to delete the “Because” in the beginning of the sentence, or the “as” after the comma in line 211!
AR 21: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 22: Line 213: replace “trajectory measurement grid spatial resolution” by “the spatial resolution of the trajectory measurement” (I would even suggest to remove trajectory here!)
AR 22: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 23: Line 222: insert “a” before ”total”
AR 23: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 24: Line 229: remove comma after “in total” and place it before “representing”
AR 24: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 25: Line 241: “shows” is here more appropriate than “demonstrates”
AR 25: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 26: Line 262: better “applied” than “used”
AR 26: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC 27: Line 266: what is a “deficit template”
AR 27: We found out that the word "template" does not contribute to understanding and removed it.
RC 28: Line 285: “u0” is not the turbulence intensity, I would expect “TI” or similar in this parenthesis
AR 28: We thank for the comment and have changed the variable accordingly. The turbulence intensity is called I_0 in the following.
RC 29: Line 290: insert “in” before “table 1”
AR 29: We have gratefully amended the passage referred to in accordance with the reviewers proposal.
RC: Many of them should have been detected by the authors in a final internal proof reading of the text. As I see it not as my task to do this proof reading as reviewer, I ask the authors (and the editors!) to provide me with a correspondingly quality checked Version for my final evaluation
AR: Once again, we thank the reviewer for the time and work that went into the evaluation of the manuscript. We want to ask for your understanding that as non-native speakers, we are not in a position to achieve the level of language the reviewer has sought. In the run-up to the first revision, we sent the paper to a proofreading service with which we previously made excellent experiences. In any case, the quality of the proofreading was insufficient this time, for which we apologise. We had this version professionally corrected again and hope that the aimed linguistic level has now been reached.
