Analysis of the Skyscraper Wind around High-Rise Buildings in Coastal Region, South Korea, during Typhoon ‘Hinnamnor’
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
You have a well measured study. Your challenge now is to use these measurements to increase the body of knowledge in the world. You could simply define the spacing of buildings that reduced the amplification of the wind and your reader could then use your paper to improve the world.
Good luck with your research.
Glen
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
As I have general concerns to this work my evaluation will not be made “point by point”.
My most significant concern deals with the measurements as the anemometers and vanes are too close to the supporting masts what does influence the measurements. Best practices advices to 1 m clearance.
In fact, depending on the undisturbed wind direction, the mast may accelerate or retard the velocity and the measured direction nay also be affected (by the same reasons the lead to the study – influence of the buildings on the wind direction).
Some of the presents results (L-1 wind rose, for example) should be clarified as it seems not compatible with the counterclockwise typhoon rotation, it’s path (fig.1) and the relative position on the ground.
An image of the relative dimension of the typhoon over the area was very helpful.
Plus fig. 9 should be similar to fig. 8 as a time line would allow a better understanding of what happened than a statistical analysis of a very short period, namely under very fast changing conditions.
Also the velocities averages should be made by periods – before/after the center passing – as the fast drop blurs the picture.
Any way allows me to come back to my main concern: the real value of measured data.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Well done in responding to the editing suggestions. In the abstract, please remove the first two words, and start with High-rise, because there is no way that buildings can be overcrowded (they can be crowded.)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This review follows the response to my first comments and the submitted reviewed paper.
I am aware (after reading your comments) of the difficulties the authors experienced in order to install equipment, I believe, within a short notice. So I think it should be referred in the text.
Anyway this enforces the need of extra caution on data treatment and analysis because the measuring conditions are far from good. Plus, I believe it should be clearly stated in the text for, not only to enlighten the reader, but also to alert to other similar situations.
This does not reduce the merit and usefulness of the work.
Editorial
You have a few mistyping “filed” for “field”.
In Fig. 5 the legends of “anemometer” and “wind vane” are misplaced.
In Table 2 the line dividing columns 6-7 is misplaced. It should divide 7-8.
2. Materials and methods
You say in your comments that “…the detailed route of the typhoon was estimated data.” But in the text it is presented as an established fact, what has consequences in the following steps of analysis. “For reader’s clear understanding…” this should be clearly stated.
The analysed period was of 48 h (5th 00:00 to 7th 00:00), correct?
3. Results
Table 2
Column 2 “Max Peak gusts” – At AWS? It is said that data from AWS was 1 min average…
Column 4 “Wind direction” – Is it referred to the gusts? If so it should be clear. Also “E” has no representation in the wind rose (if it is for the gust it’s normal, but…).
Columns 7, 10 “Wind direction” – At AWS wind rose N is residual. How can it be the main direction for average velocities?
Fig. 8
I keep my opinion concerning the way you are looking into the data. Statistical analysis for a very short period of time is not correct and does not provide the information needed to correctly take conclusions. According to Fig. 8 the peak velocities occurred around on the 6th around 6:00 H, so analysing the times series, for both speed and direction, for let’s say two hours before and after will allow to get a much clearer picture of what happened.
Plus, an order of magnitude of the typhoon’s dimensions (full and mainly the eye) will be very helpful.
In line 222 its referred the “spatiotemporal characteristics of L-1”. How can this be said without the information referred above? Also its referred the wind speeds and correspondent directions (L-1) but what is the connection to AWS? When looking into the wind roses (AWS and L-1) the maximum speed come (statistically) from NE what is not consistent with “separated wind” (line 230). In fact, L-1 anemometer is sited in the street corner so being difficult to experience reversed flow.
The referred wind roses of L-2 to L-4 seems coherent with AWS and I think that L-5 wind rose is also coherent with AWS as is not influenced by the skyscrapers, the speed being a bit higher most likely due to the eye’s position.
Fig. 13
Looking into the accumulated frequency of winds equal and above grade 6 on B. scale we find that (for a 48H period): AWS – 25 min.; L1 -8.5 H; L2-4.6 H; L3-5H; L4-1H, and; L5-0. L1 seems (again) inconsistent; L5 is consistent with its position but not with what is said in line 253.
3.4 – Gust factor
Line 348-9 – “…mean wind speed was only about 0.1 m/s…”?? In Fig. 15 the majority of U values for U<10 m/s lies in the range 3<U<10 m/s.
4. Conclusions
Line 384 – “…the gust is twice as strong…..” it should be said that it applies to this specific location because of what is referred in lines 66-69 [12].
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
This review follows the response to my second comments and the submitted reviewed paper.
Please consider my comments as a pleasant technical discussion. If it can contribute for a (from my point of view) improved text, so good.
3. Results
Fig. 8
The new figure clearly improves the information. Anyway I think that the same zoomed representation for AWS data will be very helpful to a better understanding of the L1-L5 data.
Speed - L1 – no data around 5:00 H? Speed drop at 6:00; L2 – Umax from 5:00 to 5:45 and drop at 6:00; L3 - Umax at 4:30, no data until (drop?) at 6:00; L4 – data starts at 5:00; “long” drop around 5:30-6:00; L5- no significant change, data ends at 5:15.
The 6:00 drop may suggest that the eye did not hit L5? It may also explain the similarity between AWS and L5 data. Umax was registered al L3 (40 m/s) suggesting the building’s influence. Umax(L1)? Umax (L4) seems delayed (why?) but there is no data before 5:00.
Wind direction path – L1- it is absolutely erratic but..could reflect the typhoon path? it is not the case for L2-L4 showing clear main directions except around the drop, but possible consistent with the path.
An order of magnitude of the typhoon’s dimensions (full and mainly the eye) will be very helpful.
#5 comment for Fig. 13 of results
“Looking into the accumulated frequency of winds equal and above grade 6 on Beaufort scale”…please forget it after the zoomed data in fig. 8
3.4 – Gust factor
Line 281 after table 4 (sorry for the error) – “…mean wind speed was only about 0.1 m/s…”?? Already reviewed.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
