Tracking the 6-DOF Flight Trajectory of Windborne Debris Using Stereophotogrammetry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

infrastructures-607419
 
Title: Tracking 6-DOF Flight Trajectory of Windborne Debris Using Stereo-Photogrammetry
 
The paper is focused on the windborne debris flight. In particular, authors propose a debris
measurement algorithm using stereo-photogrammetry as alternative of models calibrated without wind tunnel experiments.
 
The proposed model determine the six  degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) trajectory and velocity of a flying debris.
 
This paper discusses a crucial topic to investigate the structural damage under windstorm that is very important in the field of civil engineering. However, based on my expertise, this issue affects the building reliability and it is not affects the infrastructure reliability. Authors should discuss clearly in which cases can the hotline be used.
 
The proposed method is quite similar to the Particle Image velocimetry commonly used in wind tunnel to capture the vortex shedding. Regarding this, authors should give comments and a comparison between these two methods.
 
The analytic formulation is clear and complete. The paper describes the proposed model correctly. The scientific approach followed is opportune. However, authors should clarify their original formulations from literature.
 
The proposed algorithm need to be clarified through a flow-chart that should be added in Section 1. Authors should declare all variables through a list in Section 2.
 
The proposed model was calibrated trough an experimental campaign but authors do not give any error analyses between experimental and numerical simulation.
 
The quality of figures 1 and 2 is poor. Labels in Figs.1 and 2 should be enlarged to improve the figures readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is very interesting, authors did a good job, however, I have some comments:

Figure 1 must be clear, variables are not clear, please improve the figure. Equation (3) has P (bold) but in line 100 P are not bold. Line 102 Z(2 must be subscript). Idem line 102, 110. In line 142 “d” is not similar that ec. (18). The F in line 176 is not the same ec. (21). In line 189 theta symbol is not the theta symbol of ec. (25). In line 270 Delta symbol is italic but in ec. (35) is not.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf