Research on Wind Field Characteristics Measured by Lidar in a U-Shaped Valley at a Bridge Site

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has a reduced scientific originality and could have been more carefully written. In my opinion, the performed work is suitable for presentation and discussion in technical conferences related to wind field measurements.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: The paper has a reduced scientific originality and could have been more carefully written. In my opinion, the performed work is suitable for presentation and discussion in technical conferences related to wind field measurements.

Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions, we apologized for our incorrect writing. We have made the following revisions and corrections.

(1) We added “There are limited reports about the wind field measurement study of U-shaped valley through Lidar. The aim of this paper is to obtain the wind characteristics at bridge site in the U-shaped valley and provide a reference for the wind resistant design of related bridges in similar valley” , “WANG (27) et.al studied the wind characteristics in mountainous valley by 2D anemometers and 3D Doppler radar.” in the Introduction section.

(2) We changed the Figure 2 , Figure 7 and Figure 15.

(3) We added “According to the distribution pattern of wind speed and direction, wind parameters could be applied to bridge design, for example: wind speed and distribution along the bridge deck, wind direction change along the pylon, and these will be discussed in the further.” in the Conclusion section.

(4) We did other revised in the new manuscript. such as:

Line 8: “field measurement mostly used anemometers or wind observation towers with limited measurement position and high cost” has changed into “anemometers or wind observation tower is usually used for filed measurement, but the measured position is limited and the cost is high”.

Line 43: “at home and abroad” has been removed.

Line 337: “uneven” has been replaced by “nonuniform”. Additionally, Line 199, “uneven” has been replaced by “nonuniform” too.

The numbers of the figures and tables were changed in this manuscript, the correction in the text also be done.

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper measures the wind fields at a bridge site in a U-shaped valley. The proposed method provides a useful tool for wind field measurements. The paper provides an important dataset for modeling the wind fields in mountain areas. However, there are some shortcomings to be improved before it can be recommended for publication.

1. The bridge axis is not clear from Fig. 2b.
2. Any validations of the measurement by lidar, e.g., against measurement by anemometers?
3. Scientific language should be improved, some examples include

Line 8, field measurement mostly used anemometers.

Line 43, at home and abroad should be removed for a paper published in an international journal.

Line 337, consider replacing uneven by nonuniform.

4. Literature review should be enriched, e.g., in terms of wind-induced vibration of bridges. Some examples include

Assessment of wind-induced nonlinear post-critical performance of bridge decks

Aerodynamic damping models for vortex-induced vibration of a rectangular 4: 1 cylinder: Comparison of modeling schemes

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

This paper measures the wind fields at a bridge site in a U-shaped valley. The proposed method provides a useful tool for wind field measurements. The paper provides an important dataset for modeling the wind fields in mountain areas. However, there are some shortcomings to be improved before it can be recommended for publication.

Point 1: The bridge axis is not clear from Fig. 2b.

Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions, Fig. 2b has modified in the manuscript, and as showed by follow.

Point 2: Any validations of the measurement by lidar, e.g., against measurement by anemometers?

Response 2: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions, the bridge spans a canyon, it is difficult to place weather equipment such as anemometers. Lidar can solve this problem. At the same time, the lidar test accuracy has been calibrated before the field measurement. Therefore, it is considered that the measurement data of lidar is reliable.

Point 3: Scientific language should be improved, some examples include

Line 8, field measurement mostly used anemometers.

Line 43, at home and abroad should be removed for a paper published in an international journal.

Line 337, consider replacing uneven by nonuniform.

Response 3: We apologized for our incorrect writing.

Line 8: “field measurement mostly used anemometers or wind observation towers with limited measurement position and high cost” has changed into “anemometers or wind observation tower is usually used for filed measurement, but the measured position is limited and the cost is high”.

Line 43: “at home and abroad” has been removed.

Line 337: “uneven” has been replaced by “nonuniform”. Additionally, Line 199, “uneven” has been replaced by “nonuniform” too.

In addition, the manuscript has been revised and polished.

Point 4: Literature review should be enriched, e.g., in terms of wind-induced vibration of bridges. Some examples include: Assessment of wind-induced nonlinear post-critical performance of bridge decks; Aerodynamic damping models for vortex-induced vibration of a rectangular 4: 1 cylinder: Comparison of modeling schemes.

Response 4: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions, I am sorry that this study only involves the analysis of wind parameters at the bridge site, which is not the research content of this paper although it is the basis of bridge wind-induced vibration research. Thank you again for the reviewer’s suggestions.

The numbers of the figures and tables were changed in this manuscript, the correction in the text also be done.

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, a high performance Wind3D 6000 Lidar was used to study the wind field characteristics in a U-shaped valley bridge site.

After continuous observation ad data registrations for a few months, the Authors analysed, wind speed and direction from the perspectives of time, space, and statistical distribution.

The subject is interesting, therefore, the paper can be recommended for publication in the "Applied Science" Journal after minor revision according to the following comments:

• The Introduction Section can be improved by pointing out which are the original objectives of this paper.
• Line 141: please leave a space between "Figure" and "3". There are other typos in the document (e.g. line 181), please review carefully.
• Please improve the graphic quality of the figures, and make them in vectorial format, if possible.
• The graphs shown in Figure 7 are unclear. The authors should move the legend to the side of the graphs area, and, if possible, rotate the viewpoint so that the peaks in the graph are clearly shown.
• The Conclusion Section can be improved by pointing out how these analyses can be used to aid bridge designers.

Finally, to improve the quality of the paper, it is recommended that the manuscript be carefully proofread by a native English speaker.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

In this paper, a high performance Wind3D 6000 Lidar was used to study the wind field characteristics in a U-shaped valley bridge site. After continuous observation ad data registrations for a few months, the Authors analysed, wind speed and direction from the perspectives of time, space, and statistical distribution. The subject is interesting, therefore, the paper can be recommended for publication in the "Applied Science" Journal after minor revision according to the following comments:

Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions.

Point 1: The Introduction Section can be improved by pointing out which are the original objectives of this paper.

Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We added some content, such as  “There are limited reports about the wind field measurement study of U-shaped valley through Lidar. The aim of this paper is to obtain the wind characteristics at bridge site in the U-shaped valley and provide a reference for the wind resistant design of related bridges in similar valley” in the Introduction sction.

Point 2: Line 141: please leave a space between "Figure" and "3". There are other typos in the document (e.g. line 181), please review carefully.

Response 2: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We apologized for our incorrect writing.

Line 141: “Figure3” has replaced by “Figure 3”.

Line 181: “total number” has changed with total numbers”

Point 3: Please improve the graphic quality of the figures, and make them in vectorial format, if possible. The graphs shown in Figure 7 are unclear. The authors should move the legend to the side of the graphs area, and, if possible, rotate the viewpoint so that the peaks in the graph are clearly shown.

Response 3: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. As for Figure 7, its legend position has been moved to the side of the graph areas, and the viewpoint has changed also.

Point 4: The Conclusion Section can be improved by pointing out how these analyses can be used to aid bridge designers.

Response 4: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We added “5) According to the distribution pattern of wind speed and direction, wind parameters could be applied to bridge design, for example;wind speed and distribution along the bridge deck, wind direction change along the pylon, and these will be further discussed in the further.

” in the conclusion section.

Point 5: Finally, to improve the quality of the paper, it is recommended that the manuscript be carefully proofread by a native English speaker.

Response 5: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We changed the Figure 2 , Figure 7 and Figure 15, we did other revised in the new manuscript, such as:

Line 8: “field measurement mostly used anemometers or wind observation towers with limited measurement position and high cost” has changed into “anemometers or wind observation tower is usually used for filed measurement, but the measured position is limited and the cost is high”.

Line 43: “at home and abroad” has been removed.

Line 337: “uneven” has been replaced by “nonuniform”. Additionally, Line 199, “uneven” has been replaced by “nonuniform” too.

The numbers of the figures and tables were changed in this manuscript, the correction in the text also be done.

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This work is a contribution towards a better understanding of wind loading in a particular orographic content, which is paramount for bridge engineering.

The research has relied on a real structure experimental measurement using a Lidar system.

The title is adequate.

The theme is a niche one but very useful for bridge engineering. Still, I believe it is interesting for Applied Sciences Journal readers.

The practical problem (in the eyes of practicing engineers) and research gap (the current lack of knowledge on the field) should have been better defined.

The Introduction is adequate but, without a Literature Review section, there is not sufficient discussion on the field's current status, including recent research.

The section 2 title is not adequate ("2. Topography and Methods Topography description").

Research methods, particularly the use of the Lidar system, are in line with the current practice and well described.

The research beneath the manuscript is substantial and replicable to a certain degree.

Results are interesting and well presented.

Conclusions are scarce and could be enhanced if a deeper discussion was performed previously.

Concerning the redaction, I must say that the manuscript is not well prepared. English writing is not good and should be revised, which is just a minor hindrance. However, there are text sections such as "This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn", which is clearly not acceptable.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

This work is a contribution towards a better understanding of wind loading in a particular orographic content, which is paramount for bridge engineering. The research has relied on a real structure experimental measurement using a Lidar system. The title is adequate. The theme is a niche one but very useful for bridge engineering. Still, I believe it is interesting for Applied Sciences Journal readers.

Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions.

Point 1: The practical problem (in the eyes of practicing engineers) and research gap (the current lack of knowledge on the field) should have been better defined.

Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions, we added “There are limited reports about the wind field measurement study of U-shaped valley through Lidar. The aim of this paper is to obtain the wind characteristics at bridge site in the U-shaped valley and provide a reference for the wind resistant design of related bridges in similar valley”.

Point 2: The Introduction is adequate but, without a Literature Review section, there is not sufficient discussion on the field's current status, including recent research.

Response 2: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions, we added some contents, for example, “WANG (27) et.al studied the wind characteristics in mountainous valley by 2D anemometers and 3D Doppler radar.”.

Point 3: The section 2 title is not adequate ("2. Topography and Methods Topography description").

Response 3: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions, the section 2 title has changed to “Topography description and field measurement setup”.

Point 4: Research methods, particularly the use of the Lidar system, are in line with the current practice and well described.

Response 4: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions and affirmation.

Point 5: The research beneath the manuscript is substantial and replicable to a certain degree.

Response 5: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments.

Point 6: Results are interesting and well presented.

Response 6: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions, and some changes have been made.

Point 7: Conclusions are scarce and could be enhanced if a deeper discussion was performed previously.

Response 7: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions, we added “According to the distribution pattern of wind speed and direction, wind parameters could be applied to bridge design, for example: wind speed and distribution along the bridge deck, wind direction change along the pylon, and these will be discussed in the further”.

Point 8: Concerning the redaction, I must say that the manuscript is not well prepared. English writing is not good and should be revised, which is just a minor hindrance. However, there are text sections such as "This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn", which is clearly not acceptable.

Response 8: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions, we apologized for our incorrect writing. We revised the manuscript several times, such as English writing, paper section title, supplementary of Introduction section and Conclusion section.

The numbers of the figures and tables were changed in this manuscript, the correction in the text also be done.

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

OK for publication