the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 11 Apr 2023
URock 2023a: An open source GIS-based wind model for complex urban settings
Abstract. URock 2023a is an open source diagnostic model dedicated to wind field calculation in urban setting. It is based on a quick method initially proposed by Röckle and already implemented in the proprietary software QUIC-URB. First, the model method is described as well as its implementation in the free and open source geographic information system called QGIS. Then it is evaluated against wind tunnel measurements and QUIC-URB simulations for four different building settings plus one case with an isolated tree. The correlation between URock and QUIC-URB is high and URock reproduces quite well the spatial variations of the wind speed observed in the wind tunnel experiments. Sources of improvements are highlighted, which are applicable both for URock and QUIC-URB. URock 2023a is available via the Urban Multiscale Environment Predictor (UMEP), a city-based climate service tool designed for researchers and service providers presented as a plugin for QGIS. The model, data and scripts used to write this manuscript can be freely accessed at https://zenodo.org/record/7681245.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(9588 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(9588 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-354', Csilla Gal, 29 May 2023
I would like to thank the authors for their work and scientific contribution.
The wind model presented in the manuscript constitutes an important contribution to the modelling science within the scope of Geoscientific Model Development. It addresses an important gap in urban microclimate and outdoor thermal comfort comodeling, thereby having potential to advance these fields.
The manuscript is well-structured, providing sufficient detail regarding both the model and the experiment. The strengths and limitations of the model are presented in a balanced manner. Moreover, the accessibility of the data and code ensures the reproducibility of the results.
It is strongly recommend that the paper undergoes a technical revision. In particular, the authors are advised to adress the following sentences or sections:
- Line 248, entire paragraph: The paragraph starting at line 248 should be restructured for improved clarity. It may be beneficial to introduce and explain the 'heighest stacked block rule' (mentioned in line 253) prior to referencing it. Additionally, clarification is needed regarding what do 'If equal' (in line 250 and 251) refer to. Shouldn't the first 'If equal' (line 250) be 'If unequal'?
- Line 359, 'below 0.5 and above 1.5 m/s': As written, it implies no wind speeds within the range of 0.5—1.5 m/s.
- Line 137, bulleted list: I recommend changing the bulleted list to a numbered list, for clarity.
- Line 301, links in the paragraph: The links within the paragraph are advised to be moved into footnotes, for readability.
- Line 331, new paragraph/description: For clarity and consistency, I suggest providing a brief description of the evaluation steps, such as via a single-sentence description of what sub-images on Figure 17 present and how were obtained.
- Line 396, 'green dash line': Please note that there is no dashed line in the referenced figure.
The attached PDF contains further recommendations regarding the use of commas, prepositions, and word choices in some cases. The authors should adopt as many corrections as they feel fit and justified.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jérémy Bernard, 30 May 2023
Thank you to Csilla Gal for reviewing the manuscript and her comments. Most of the proposed modifications are relevant. Thus we will take them into account in the revised version once the interactive discussion is over.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-354-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-354', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Jul 2023
The authors have developed a valuable open-source urban wind simulation model, which has been integrated into UMEP. This model utilizes the Röckle (1990) methodology. It has been demonstrated that this open-source model generates a wind field comparable to that of the QUIC-URB model, highlighting its promising potential. The authors have done a commendable job of presenting the data. Overall it is a good paper. However, there are some instances where sentences appear incomplete or somewhat incoherent, and it is suggested that the authors aim for more direct and concise writing. I have a few minor suggestions:
The abstract could be drafted in a more scientifically question-driven tone, resembling a publication for a scientific journal rather than a manual.
While the open-source nature of the model is its most important feature, the authors should also highlight other significant aspects, such as underlying mechanisms. If this model is merely an open-source version of QUIC-URB, it would be valuable to explain its scientific importance.
The conclusion should be more concise and straightforward, clearly highlighting the improvements made and how these advancements contribute to the field.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-354-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jérémy Bernard, 13 Jul 2023
Thank you to Anonymous referee for the comments. We will take them into account for the final version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-354-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jérémy Bernard, 13 Jul 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-354', Csilla Gal, 29 May 2023
I would like to thank the authors for their work and scientific contribution.
The wind model presented in the manuscript constitutes an important contribution to the modelling science within the scope of Geoscientific Model Development. It addresses an important gap in urban microclimate and outdoor thermal comfort comodeling, thereby having potential to advance these fields.
The manuscript is well-structured, providing sufficient detail regarding both the model and the experiment. The strengths and limitations of the model are presented in a balanced manner. Moreover, the accessibility of the data and code ensures the reproducibility of the results.
It is strongly recommend that the paper undergoes a technical revision. In particular, the authors are advised to adress the following sentences or sections:
- Line 248, entire paragraph: The paragraph starting at line 248 should be restructured for improved clarity. It may be beneficial to introduce and explain the 'heighest stacked block rule' (mentioned in line 253) prior to referencing it. Additionally, clarification is needed regarding what do 'If equal' (in line 250 and 251) refer to. Shouldn't the first 'If equal' (line 250) be 'If unequal'?
- Line 359, 'below 0.5 and above 1.5 m/s': As written, it implies no wind speeds within the range of 0.5—1.5 m/s.
- Line 137, bulleted list: I recommend changing the bulleted list to a numbered list, for clarity.
- Line 301, links in the paragraph: The links within the paragraph are advised to be moved into footnotes, for readability.
- Line 331, new paragraph/description: For clarity and consistency, I suggest providing a brief description of the evaluation steps, such as via a single-sentence description of what sub-images on Figure 17 present and how were obtained.
- Line 396, 'green dash line': Please note that there is no dashed line in the referenced figure.
The attached PDF contains further recommendations regarding the use of commas, prepositions, and word choices in some cases. The authors should adopt as many corrections as they feel fit and justified.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jérémy Bernard, 30 May 2023
Thank you to Csilla Gal for reviewing the manuscript and her comments. Most of the proposed modifications are relevant. Thus we will take them into account in the revised version once the interactive discussion is over.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-354-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-354', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Jul 2023
The authors have developed a valuable open-source urban wind simulation model, which has been integrated into UMEP. This model utilizes the Röckle (1990) methodology. It has been demonstrated that this open-source model generates a wind field comparable to that of the QUIC-URB model, highlighting its promising potential. The authors have done a commendable job of presenting the data. Overall it is a good paper. However, there are some instances where sentences appear incomplete or somewhat incoherent, and it is suggested that the authors aim for more direct and concise writing. I have a few minor suggestions:
The abstract could be drafted in a more scientifically question-driven tone, resembling a publication for a scientific journal rather than a manual.
While the open-source nature of the model is its most important feature, the authors should also highlight other significant aspects, such as underlying mechanisms. If this model is merely an open-source version of QUIC-URB, it would be valuable to explain its scientific importance.
The conclusion should be more concise and straightforward, clearly highlighting the improvements made and how these advancements contribute to the field.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-354-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jérémy Bernard, 13 Jul 2023
Thank you to Anonymous referee for the comments. We will take them into account for the final version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-354-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jérémy Bernard, 13 Jul 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
URock 2023a: Data and Code to use to reproduce the evaluation of the model Jérémy Bernard https://zenodo.org/record/7681245
Model code and software
URock 2023a: Data and Code to use to reproduce the evaluation of the model Jérémy Bernard https://zenodo.org/record/7681245
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 454 | 250 | 18 | 722 | 10 | 10 |
- HTML: 454
- PDF: 250
- XML: 18
- Total: 722
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 183 | 24 |
| China | 2 | 72 | 9 |
| France | 3 | 69 | 9 |
| Sweden | 4 | 56 | 7 |
| Germany | 5 | 55 | 7 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 183
Fredrik Lindberg
Sandro Oswald
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(9588 KB) - Metadata XML