Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting and complex topic. With a simplified model, the discrepancy between experimental and theoretical results are reasonable.

 

Please go over the manuscript careful. For example, on line 186, the word "velocity" was repeated.

Author Response

 

                                              Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written. the novelty is very good. the paper can be published after the revise,

1-Why the increase of density of air is 420

less than 2%?

2-Why is the aerodynamic resistance of the experimental model mainly affected by the impact force of raindrops?

3- in line 363, it is suggested to use "Equations (21-23) (23) ",

instead of "Equation (21)-Equation (23) "

4- please decrease of the reference number, especially for in line 53 for “have been obtained [3-11].” Or line 55 for “the degree of erosion [12-19]”.

In line 113, please revise “Wherein: vr(D) and”.

Author Response

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the wind-driven rain aerodynamic forces on the bridge main beam has been studied. The theoretical calculation has been done and the results have been verified by compared to the experimental results. I believe that this research has been done in excellent level and include important and practical results. In addition, the manuscript has a good structure and all details has been described completely. In short, the manuscript can be published in the present form, but to improve the quality of the manuscript, it is better to consider the following points:

1- Regarding Abstract, lines 21 and 23, please notice that you should validate the theoretical results with experiment. so, please correct two sentences. it is okay to write "the drag coefficient variations obtained by theoretical calculation are in good agreement with experimental data" and the same for the next sentence. 

2- In the last paragraph of the introduction section, the novelty of this research should be bold. for example, what is the innovation compared to ref No. 35 and 36. 

3- Related to Table 1, please refer to an appropriate reference. 

4- Related to Figure 12 part b, I see the relative error of 116%, is it true? Are you saying with this accuracy that the obtained results are in good agreement with the laboratory data? Or in other cases the error is about 40%? Please explain this matter. 

5- I can not agree with first point after figure 13, so, I suggest to delete it.

6- Conclusion section should be completed and there are a lot valuable achievements  in this study. 

English language fine and minor editing required. 

 

Author Response

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Overall, it is an interesting paper dealing with the issue of the aerodynamic force changes of the bridge main beam under the 10 actions of wind-driven rain. However, several considerations are expected from the author:

1. The main concern of the reviewer is on the discussion section which lacks validation (requires several related citations) from the previous studies to ensure that the works are aligned toward the trend and theoretical conceptualization.

2. It is not clear what factors or mechanism causes certain results. This is not clearly discussed in the manuscript.

3. Kindly check the writing format, for example in lines 95 and  115 in which I assumed there is a full stop the words "verification" and "[13]". 

4. The reference is good covering appropriate current years to provide good direction for the research and paper. 

Author Response

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

ok