Wind Tunnel Tests of an Aeroelastic Model of a Long-Span Transmission Tower

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting work with measurement of Transmission Tower Response Based on Non - contact Method. Some minor suggestions are below.

1. In “introduction” section , “There exist some problems in the design of aeroelastic models in these studies, and using accelerometers and laser displacement meters to test the transmission tower’s wind-induced response can interfere with the test accuracy, causing a lower reference value for test results”, but in the conclusion, “The pulsation and frequency spectra of the transmission tower model’s wind-induced response obtained from the video-measuring instrument and accelerometer are close”. What is their logical relationship?, Please added some more conclusion in the conclusion section.

2. The model scale ratio should be mentioned in the paper.

3. In the reference, such as [14], the Author ' s first name in uppercase or lowercase is undiscord.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article "Wind tunnel tests of an aeroelastic model of a long-span transmission tower" has some shortcomings that the authors need to correct:

1. The novelty of the study should be briefly stated in the abstract.

2. Numerical results should be added to the abstract.

3. A section under the title of the literature review should be added to the article and review previous studies. The review of previous studies should be reviewed more comprehensively and the previous studies should be grouped and the weaknesses in each group of research should be explained and analyzed.

4. Recent references related to the years 2021-2022 should be used in the introduction and literature.

5. The contributions of the study should be stated at the end of the introduction.

6. English language should be reviewed throughout the article and grammatical and language problems should be corrected.

7. More mathematical relationships should be provided in the third part and related references should be added in the third part.

8. In this study, the results were not analyzed in detail, and it is necessary for the authors to add a section titled discussion in the article and analyze the results and compare the results of this study with previous studies.

9. In the conclusion section, the weaknesses of the study should be pointed out and suggestions for future research should be made based on the existing weaknesses.

10. The references used in the article are old, and new references, especially from this journal, should be used in the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 28. Remove "the transmission tower line"

Line 33. Remove "and the standard for other research methods". It is a not necessary repetition

Line 35. Replace "has been built over 60 years" with "was built more than 60 years ago".

Line 101. Please clarify what you mean by "Beam 188 element"

Line 104. Please explain what you mean by "Mass21". It is a feature of the code? If so what advantages/disadvantages does it introduce, and why was chosen this setting?

Line 109. Please align the table caption to be on the same page of the table. Also, I suppose that the torsional mode is around the z-axis. If so please specify this in the table.

Line 122. This is a strong assumption (ignore Reynolds number when simulating wind). How can you justify this? According to paragraph 3.4 your wind speed varied from 2 to 18 m/s, which using WT model height as reference length, would result in ranges from 2.6e+5 to 2.3e+6. This shows that at lower speeds you might have encountered Re-dependent effects in WT which are not occurring at full scale.

Line 143. Please add a synthetic description of the acquisition hardware and software. What NI modules? What type of accelerometers (pass band, resonating frequency)? Was data filtered?

Line 145. Please indicate a reference figure that 100Hz is a valid sampling frequency for the dynamics present in the scaled model.

Line 164. Please add information about EMD and Hilbert transform. What type of decomposition was used? EMD or EEMD? You should note quote a signal processing method without incorporating an introduction of it. How were the frequencies of table 3 calculated? Hilber spectrum? Fourier analysis? 

Line 171. Rephrase paragraph title. International language "simulation" refers to numerical modelling, whilst WT activity is "experiment". The title is misleading

Line 173. What was the blockage factor? What was the tunnel average freestream turbulence intensity? 

Line 186. Figure 6. I assume that the WT model could be rotated. If so add a quick description of the rotating system and explain what measures were taken to avoid BL interference with the mechanism

Line 191. As data was recorded digitally, how the differential calculation was performed? Please insert methodology

Line 208. Fig 7. How Power spectra was calculated? Welch method? If so, this should be described in the methodology section. Figure7c. The peak at f=0 is a proper peak or is the zero frequency component because the mean was not subtracted from the signal before taking the FFT?

Line 188. Do the authors are discussing the full-scale model here? Where are the results of the WT experimental activity? The organisation of this section is extremely confusing to the reader

Line 236. Where does this number come from? (Re correction factor)

Line 242. Gradient wind speed? How does a gradient of velocity have units of m/s?

Line 298. Table 4. Numerical data are introduced but no information through the paper is given about the setting of the numerical simulation, the solver (ANSYS has more than one structural solver), the mesh, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered all the questions and the article is recommended for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

N/A