Analysis of Fire-Induced Circulations during the FireFlux2 Experiment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This was an interesting work, but the reviewer believes some modifications to the paper should be made prior to publications. Here are this reviewer's comments:

·        Typo in abstract: “one in a”

·        I am wondering how much the simulations are dependent on the fuel type of the burnt area (type 3, tall grasses). Does the choice in the simulations match with the experiments?

·        Page 4: somewhere in the middle of the paragraph says “Error! Reference source not found”. Please correct the error.

·        Figure 2 is not easy to read, please make the font sizes, legends, et. larger.

·        Section 3.1. There is again a typo “see Error! Reference source not found.a) and the ET (Error! Reference source not found.b).” this type of error can be found for many times across the manuscript.

·        Why is Figure 5 printed in 3-4 back to back pages? Are these different plots? The difference between simulations and temperature reading in Fig. 5 is a lot. How do the authors explain the differences?

·        Same scenario for Figure 6. The paper needs major edits. Or maybe the version the reviewer has received has these artifacts.

·        Were the anemometers used in the experiments temperature-corrected? Usually the anemometer cannot operate at high temperature and if you do end up running them at high temperatures, the results they generate is not accurate.

·        Can the authors comment on the correlation between the vorticity and heat release rate in their simulations?

 

·        It was unclear how the vortex structures and the fire-induced circulations increase the ROS in actual wildfire. This effect seems to potentially increase the local burning rate of the fuels, but how does it contribute to the rate at which wildfire propagates? How does your results support this? 

 

Quality of English was good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The abstract directly mentions "The most noticeable impacts of the fire-induced circulation on the fire rate of spread were at the head of. the fire. ", but the conclusion did not emphasize this experimental conclusion.

2. The experiment was conducted under moderate wind conditions, so the conditions should be elaborated in the Conclusion part to ensure the accuracy and tightness of the experimental conclusions.

3. As mentioned in the introduction, "the wind caused by the fire will affect the fire spread rate", there is no reference here.

4. The impact of unidirectional coupling and bidirectional coupling on fre is mentioned in the introduction, but subsequent experiments only involve coupling, and do not specifically distinguish unidirectional coupling and bidirectional coupling, which are not closely connected.

5. The Results and Discussion explained the ROS of the four meteorological towers obtained in the experiment but did not explain the actual meaning represented by each value.

6. The layout position in Figure 4 can be moved down a line to avoid splitting complete text paragraphs.

7. The experimental phenomena in Figure 5 can supplement the conclusions drawn therein and make the structural logic more complete.

 

8. The conclusion mentioned that the upwelling generated by the fire directly affected ROS, but did not specify how this upwelling affected ROS.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This reviewer believes the paper has improved and should be accepted for publication. I appreciate the authors answering this reviewer'd comments.