Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After Revision, the paper can be accepted for publication

Author Response

Thank you again, your comments are of great help to the improvement of the writing quality.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The absence of line numbers is rather confusing for a reviewer.

2. Some of the keywords should be reconsidered as they do not give any information besides the trivial, e.g. Wind tunnel test, Reynolds number, Turbulence intensity.

3. The nomenclature should also indicate the units used (or the non-dimensionality factor).

4. The first sentence in the Introduction "The circular cylinder has been sparked a lot of interest..." is grammatically wrong. As a matter of fact: the complete document should be properly proof-read.

5. Also the references "Inoue et al. - Sound generation by a two-dimensional circular cylinder in a uniform flow - Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2002", "Inoue et al. - Aeolian tones radiated from flow past two square cylinders in tandem - Physics of Fluids, 2006", and "Dawi et al. - Direct and integral noise computation of two square cylinders in tandem arrangement - Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2018", should be added in the introduction.

6. The novelty of the work should be better highlighted.

7. A structure overview is missing in the section I.

8. I would advise the authors to add a reference to the used wind tunnel in section 2.

9. Equations 2 and 4: I think it should be added that this is only based on the pressure force and any friction contribution is neglected. Also, it might be wise to add a little motivation to as to why this is justified.

10. I think the font sizes in almost all figures are too small: this should be of the same level as the text in the main body of the document.

11. Figure 13 should be more critically discussed. The same applies to figure 15 b and d.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the authors have sufficiently improved the paper and therefore I advise to accept it.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The experimental setup is to be described in detail.

How is the air velocity measured? And in how many points? what are the location of these point?

A measurement uncertainty study is to be performed.

A nomenclature is to be added.

The expression of Re is to be added.

What is the novelty of this study? To be stated in the text.

Introduction needs to be more extended. The cited references are to be described with more details.

The works related to wind tunnels contains usually a study using PIV system, to investigate the flow structure. Why is it not included in this paper?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

review of the paper "Investigation of Wind Loads Acting on Low-Aspect-Ratio Cylinders Based on a Wind Tunnel Test":

• The email address of the correspondence author is not given. I assume that the "*" behind the first author refers to.
• The introduction is too narrowly inclined to experiential results. Furthermore, a little more context, also with references, should be given for the generally interested reader (such as cylinders, tandem cylinders etc). For this purpose, the following references are advised to be included:
  • General:

Norberg, An experimental investigation of the flow around a circular cylinder: influence of aspect ratio, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1994.

• • Computations

Mittal, Computation of three-dimensional flows past circular cylinder of low aspect ratio, Physics of Fluids, 2001.

• • 3D flow/end-wall plate:

Cieslik et al, Dipole-wall collision in a shallow fluid, European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids, 2009.

• In the complete results sections: the authors should mention the error bars/uncertainty of the measurement.
• I think the authors should also more discuss the flow around the cylinders more. For instance, if the cp values change drastically, what is responsible for that.
• I miss a discussion of the influence of the "end wall plate", also in the results.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think not much of my comments have been seriously considered. This is rather surprising to me.

I do not think that the introduction may only be restricted to some narrow topic of the paper. That would be a bad introduction as it withholds the reader some more general context (whether it be numerical investigation of something else).

One of the few thing that was change is the email address of the corresponding author, however a private email is supplied which is totally unacceptable. Either provide the work email or EXPLAIN why you cant provide an email of the company/institute you claim to work for!

 

To conclude: I stand by my original review! If the authors don't take this serious I advise the editor to reject the paper.