Correction of Field-Measured Wind Speed Affected by Deterministic Interference Factors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents research results that are potentially very interesting. The authors compare the wind actions resulting from physical and numerical modeling at two different locations. They then compare these values with the values derived from local Building Design Codes and field measurements. All stages of the research are well documented and presented in a legible way. The conclusions lack a final comparison of the results of model tests with the results of in situ measurements in a graphic form, which would greatly improve their perception.
Author Response
Response：We appreciate very much for the valuable suggestions.There is a comparison of wind speed influence coefficient (CVI) between numerical simulation and wind tunnel test in a graphic form, but lack of CVI results of in-situ measurement in the paper. It could indeed greatly improve their perception if adding comparison of field measurements. However, the comparison of field measurement cannot be realized due to the limitation of test conditions. This is also the improved direction of the follow-up research.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Correction of Field-measured Wind Speed Affected by Deterministic Interference Factors” aims at evaluating and discussing the effect of deterministic (bias) interference sources on on-field measurements of wind speed. The analysis was carried out using a combined approach, involving both wind tunnel experiments and CFD computations, both matching the ground and atmospheric features of a recent tropical cyclone. The analysis allows to assess the overall reliability of the wind speed data throughout the course of the aforementioned atmospheric event, and quantitatively describe experimental interference by means of a correction factor.
The present reviewer’s opinion is the work can be useful for other researchers working in the same research field. As a consequence, the present work is recommended for publication on Applied Sciences, as long as the following information is included into the manuscript:
- there is no literature reference to Typhoon Mangkhut in any point of the manuscript. Although such event is well-known, the authors should provide some recent literature works for the interested reader;
- the authors should report the experimental uncertainty of their cobra probes measurements, in order to better appreciate the (possible) discrepancies between experimental and numerical results;
- some abbreviations and acronyms are not defined in the text (DEM, SST, SIMPLEC, ...), the authors should revise this issue;
- software used for the numerical simulations is not reported in the description of the CFD setup, the authors should report this piece of information
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
