Numerical Simulation and Wind Tunnel Test on the Wind-Induced Response of Three Typical Types of Greenhouse Main Structures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The author conducted field experiments and computer simulations. I think it's one of the hard and long-term studies. However, for a better scientific paper, I would like you to give me an enough explanation of the comments. (Please refer to the attached file)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your review comments, we have made some revisions.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have done a comprehensive wind study on three typical types of greenhouse main structures. The results are conclusive and convincing. Modifications are required before the final acceptance of the paper.
i) Comment on the terrain category (as per GB50009-2001) for which the power law index is 0.15.
ii) Check equations 6 and 10, there is some formatting error
iii) A grid convergence study is required for checking the quality of the mesh. For this, you can refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103889.
iv) Use contour of non-dimensional parameter Cp in place of Pressure for Fig 6,7 and 8. If you use the same contour then it is preferable if you use a regular number format in place of a scientific one for denoting the numbers.
v) For figure 9, the results for wind angle >90degree are plotted only for sawtooth-type structures. It is easily understandable that for Venlo and Round-arch type, the results for higher angles are actually similar to the lower angles. But if you plot the results for higher angles only for sawtooth type then it is actually a little bit confusing for the readers. So, it is better if you give the results of Venlo and Round-arch type for higher values for this graphical plot.
Author Response
Thank you for your review comments, we have made some revisions. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear, authors
I was interested in your paper. I have made some comments and questions to make your paper seem more valuable and appealing. The comments are well reflected and the questions are well answered.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
It is really true as Reviewer suggested that the abstract requires statement modification. We have made language changes. (Line 18-24, page 1)
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
