Optimal Section Design of Korean Agricultural Greenhouse Response to Climate Change Based on Monte Carlo Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors 

I have reviewed the manuscript "Optimal Section Design of Korean Agricultural Greenhouse Respond to Climate Change Based on Monte Carlo Simulation". I have some queries which need to be fulfilled are as:

1. Grammatical mistakes, need to be corrected.

2. The original figures of the set-ups are not given in the manuscript, and need to be added with the explanation.

3. The introduction and the Literature review need to be extended.

4. This work is simulation-based, but needs to be experimental validation. 

5. Practical applications of the newly designed greenhouse are missing.

6. References of publications with greenhouses of various shapes are available. Include some of the references.

 

Thanks 

 

 

Author Response

Many thanks to the editors and reviewers for their constructive comments that will help improve our manuscript. Each comment were revised and the contents were highlighted with blue colour. The responses to individual comments are in Italics below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      Line 111: The wrong explanation is given for G in Equation (2). Please revise it!

2.      Line 121: Please give the information of averaging time and return period for the design wind speed adopted in the paper.

3.      Line 96-99：Which kind of load type does wind/snow load belongs to？The expression seems unclear.

4.      Please give clear source for the parameters adopted in the paper, for example, Fig.3, Table 1, Table 2.

5.      Figure 2: The element number for structural analysis modeling seems much smaller than the general finite element analysis. Please verify the accuracy of the structural analysis modeling.

6.      The large local wind pressures acting on the claddings can lead to the damage of greenhouse. However, the paper doesn’t consider this kind of damage. Please clarify it in the discussions of the paper.

Author Response

Many thanks to the editors and reviewers for their constructive comments that will help improve our manuscript. Each comment were revised and the contents were highlighted with blue colour. The responses to individual comments are in Italics below:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been  revised carefully based on the comments of reviewers. It can be accepted in my opinion.