Air Ventilation Performance of School Classrooms with Respect to the Installation Positions of Return Duct
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper assesses the indoor airflow according to the installation location of return diffusers. The topic is interesting. However, in my opinion., the paper is not well structured. Below the authors can find some suggestions on how to improve the overall paper’s quality.
Section 1
The introduction section is clear (although a bit long) and provides a good contextualization of the investigated topic. However, I suggest the authors to shorten this section and to create a new section dealing with the state of the art in order to move part of the literature to this new section. Moreover, authors should clearly state (i) the research question they intend to address and (ii) the gap in the literature that the paper intends to fill. They also should clarify where the empirical analysis has been carried out and the reason why the authors have chosen such a case study. Where is exactly located the general “school classroom” they refer to? In which country or region ? Indeed, only later in the paper the reader is informed that the authors explore the Korean case. Finally, the section should end with a description of the paper’s structure in order to provide the reader with a short paper’s outline.
Section 2
This section should deal with the state of the art. Part of literature reported in introduction as well as the content of section 3 could be moved here. In contrast, the discussion about the dimension of school classroom and the air conditioning method could be moved into the case-study (section 3).
Section 3
In this section, authors should discuss the case-study. In particular, they should justify (i) why they have chosen the case-study analyzed, (ii) its characteristics, (iii) its relevance and (iv) to what extent conclusions drawn from the empirical analysis can be extended to similar cases. Moreover, how did the authors collect data? All these aspects should be carefully addressed by the authors.
Section 4
I suggest to rename this section as “methodology” since it deals with the methods used in the paper.
Section 5
This section is well-structured and overall fine.
Section 6
This section lacks a discussion about (i) the possibility to extend the results achieved to other cases, (ii) the study’s limitations, and (iii) possible further lines of research.
Author Response
Please find the authors' response attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I just had a first time studied the article and with such a nice subject and many good expressions, I couldn't wait and waste time to suggest the following to you:
I think you need a short time to change to a better turbulence model. For simplicity, the RANS models as the RNG-turbulence model or Realizable or SST model should be used. This is because the standard k-e model: is not capable to capture the streamline curvature (which is important in this case to show a reasonable flow direction), overpredicts the turbulence parameters and many other shortcomings that are typical for the standard k-e model. Therefore I suggest changing and run at least one of the above-mentioned models which do not take a very long time to simulate, compared to the standard one. All other parts as boundary conditions and so on are almost right.
Author Response
Please find the authors' response attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author(s), the new version of the manuscript is definitely improved. Well done!
