A Mesoscale CFD Simulation Study of Basic Wind Pressure in Complex Terrain—A Case Study of Taizhou City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this work a CFD model based on geographic information data for a region has been developed in order to determine the basic wind pressure for a specific site. The topic is very interesting, with a useful engineering application; the paper has good quality in the complex.
The wind data of the example region are well explained and complete. Maybe you could provide the exact reference which derived. The introduction in general is quite poor, so in addition to the previous references for the data, you could add a section on the numerical approaches used also in other applications. For example similar considerations used for a turbomachinery that works near the surge can be extended to your application where the separations play a key role in the numerical prediction and precision. So, as example, you could add this ref.:
· - Cravero, C.; Leutcha, P.J.; Marsano, D. Simulation and Modeling of Ported Shroud Effects on Radial Compressor Stage Stability Limits. Energies 2022, 15, 2571.
Here unsteady models in a centrifugal compressor working near surge have been developed.
The CFD model section has been described with the software used and the computational domain adopted. The discretization performed has been shown and described, but there is not an actual mesh sensitivity analysis. The boundary conditions should be resumed in a table. Why in the air properties have been not taken into account the temperature dependence? Clearly you have used the wall functions, but what is the y+ at the surfaces? Have you tried to use another turbulent model to better capture the flow separation at the ground?
The result and analysis section is quite well organized and complete. Can you enlarge the flow contours? The conclusions resume the main results obtained.
You should check some typos errors.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for reviewing the paper and giving helpful and insightful comments. We have carefully considered all the reviewer’s comments and believe that we have revised the paper to the best of our ability to address all the reviewer’s concerns. Some editorial changes were also made in the revised manuscript.
Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the CFD model was developed and optimized based on geographic information data for Taizhou as an example, and suitable turbulence models were selected for CFD. The topic of the paper draws interest from the readers. However, the manuscript needs a significant effort to improve its quality to meet a standard for reputable international journals. Therefore, the recommendation for this paper is a major revision. Below are some comments to help the authors to improve the paper quality.
1. We encourage authors to add references to CFD studies on the site. The introduction should explicitly address the novelty/gap between this study and current research trends. This work can be considered a good exercise or case study for CFD, but unfortunately, it is not sufficient for writing a scientific paper. In order to be considered for publication, the paper must offer a distinct novelty to the reader.
2. Please explain the consideration of using RNG SST k-ω model turbulence compared to the other CFD methods.
3. The paper presents a convergence test. However, the authors need to make sure that the solution is also independent of the mesh resolution and achieves a mesh-independent solution. Therefore, a mesh independence study should be presented.
4. The results and discussion should be presented more profoundly, scientifically, and numerically and need to compare to previous studies. Moreover, the error between simulated maximum valued and observed for some positions is quite large. Please explain why. Is the result still reliable?
5. The conclusion needs to be written more technically.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for reviewing the paper and giving helpful and insightful comments. We have carefully considered all the reviewer’s comments and believe that we have revised the paper to the best of our ability to address all the reviewer’s concerns. Some editorial changes were also made in the revised manuscript.
Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All my comments and suggestions have been answered and added in the revised work. Now the paper is ready for the publication in this form, being increased its quality.
Reviewer 2 Report
The quality of the revised paper has been improved, and the authors have accommodated the reviewer's comments. I think the paper can be accepted for publication.
