## 5 Conclusions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\chi/L=-1\), \(y=0\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\chi/L=-0.75\), \(y=0\)} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Streamwise** & **Vertical** & **Windage Yaw** & **Streamwise** & **Vertical** & **Windage** \\  & **Displacement** & **Displacement** & **Angle** & **Displacement** & **Displacement** & **Yaw Angle** \\ \hline Only considering & & & & & & \\ the streamwise and vertical wind speed & 1.215 & 0.231 & 21.604 & 1.078 & 0.181 & 19.056 \\ \hline Increase & 0.04\% & 0.10\% & 0.04\% & 0.86\% & 1.99\% & 0.90\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{\(\chi/L=-0.5\), \(y=0\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\chi/L=-0.25\), \(y=0\)} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Streamwise** & **Vertical** & **Windage Yaw** & **Streamwise** & **Vertical** & **Windage** \\  & **Displacement** & **Displacement** & **Angle** & **Displacement** & **Displacement** & **Yaw Angle** \\ \hline Only considering & & & & & & \\ the streamwise wind speed & 1.657 & 0.442 & 30.102 & 2.468 & 1.09\% & 48.239 \\ \hline Considering both & & & & & & \\ the streamwise and vertical wind speed & 1.723 & 0.484 & 31.456 & 2.513 & 1.147 & 49.412 \\ \hline Increase & 4.00\% & 9.30\% & 4.50\% & 1.80\% & 4.67\% & 2.43\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{\(\chi/L=0\), \(y=0\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\chi/L=0.25\), \(y=0\)} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Streamwise** & **Vertical** & **Windage Yaw** & **Streamwise** & **Vertical** & **Windage** \\  & **Displacement** & **Displacement** & **Angle** & **Displacement** & **Displacement** & **Yaw Angle** \\ \hline Only considering & & & & & & \\ the streamwise and vertical wind speed & 2.637 & 1.297 & 52.775 & 2.023 & 0.686 & 37.742 \\ \hline Considering both & & & & & & \\ the streamwise and vertical wind speed & 2.635 & 1.295 & 52.737 & 2.009 & 0.674 & 37.415 \\ \hline Increase & \(-0.05\%\) & \(-0.14\%\) & \(-0.07\%\) & \(-0.73\%\) & \(-1.73\%\) & \(-0.87\%\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The wind-induced response of the lowest point of the jumper cable. After considering the effect of vertical wind speed, the increase of the wind-induced response of the jumper cable is remarkable in some positions where the wind climbing effect is significant. Overall, the comparison of the present results and those obtained from the codes shows the divergence among the codes, also the overestimations at the upstream and downstream roots of the hill, with regard to horizontal wind. The finding that the speed-up profile is strongly related to the \(H\)/\(L\) and the shape of the hill implies a need of a careful modification of current codes. Actually, it is worth noting that among the presented codes, only the code of AS/NZS 1170.2 [32], from which the results are close to present results, takes into account the factor of \(H\)/\(L\). Furthermore, the presence of the vertical wind probably leads to an adverse effect on the structure, which is not well considered in the current codes, and not well investigated in the previous studies. It is necessary to achieve a simplified design equation for the estimation of the vertical wind speed in further studies. Conceptualization, G.S., Y.C. ; Investigation, J.Y. and Y.G. ; Methodology, G.S. and Y.X. ; Data curation, J.Y. ; Supervision, W.L. ; Writing--original draft, J.Y. ; Writing--review and editing, G.S., Y.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. : 51838012, 51878607). The authors declare no conflict of interest. +++ ==WARNING: Truncated because of repetitions==  
++  
* _[PERSON] and [PERSON]_ (2004) [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON] [PERSON] Performance of various sub-grid scale models in large-eddy simulations of turbulent flow over complex terrain. _Atmos. Environ._**2004**, _38_, 7083-7091. [CrossRef]
* _[PERSON] et al._ (2001) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] A wind tunnel study of separated flow over a two-dimensional ridge and a circular hill. _Wind Eng._**2001**, _89_, 573-576.