An Experimental Framework for 5G Wireless System Integration into Industry 4.0 Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a comprehensive framework of evaluation 5G in i4.0 systems. This is a timely work as the industrial 5G is in quick growth. The paper is well written and easy to follow. I believe this is a piece of work that is worth sharing to the research community.

To better clarify the contributions, I hope the authors can compare with the most recent white paper from 5G-ACIA entitled “performance testing of 5G systems for industrial automation”.

Moreover, in the section 3.3 and 3.3.1, I hope to see more comparison of their implementation with the state-of-the-art if any.

Then, in section 3.3.1, it is clear the processing delay introduced by the NTS is too big when we have the 5G URLLC in near future. What is the solution or plan then?

Author Response

This paper presents a comprehensive framework of evaluation 5G in i4.0 systems. This is a timely work as the industrial 5G is in quick growth. The paper is well written and easy to follow. I believe this is a piece of work that is worth sharing to the research community.

[Authors’ reply] We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive review statements.

To better clarify the contributions, I hope the authors can compare with the most recent white paper from 5G-ACIA entitled “performance testing of 5G systems for industrial automation”.

[Authors’ reply] The 5G-ACIA white paper that the reviewer suggests, provides some guidelines on industrial 5G network performance testing. It provides a reference schema for the definition and reporting of testing parameters and system description, and some reference guidelines about the reference application scenarios. In this context, the wireless capabilities of our Research Lab and part of the contributions from STEP 5 in our operational flow are well-aligned with the views in the white paper. We have added some text in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 to highlight this aspect.  

If we put it in the context of the overall 5G-ACIA work, our framework contribution would span over multiple of their focus activities: e.g., mainly WP1 (use cases and requirements), WP4 (dissemination) and WP5 (validation and tests).

Moreover, in the section 3.3 and 3.3.1, I hope to see more comparison of their implementation with the state-of-the-art if any.

[Authors’ reply] State-of-the art, in this case, are commercial devices. We have added a few examples of network analyzers, network emulators and industrial 5G devices that aim at providing a similar functionality to our custom-made HW/SW solutions. It should be noted that, when we started our work 4 years ago there was a lack of proper commercial solutions targeting 5G, especially network emulators and industrial 5G devices. We have highlighted in the text the motivations and the benefits for developing our own suite, and compare it to the reported state-of-the art. We have added several pieces of text throughout Sections 3.3. and 3.3.1.

Then, in section 3.3.1, it is clear the processing delay introduced by the NTS is too big when we have the 5G URLLC in near future. What is the solution or plan then?

[Authors’ reply] We thank the reviewer for rising this aspect. Integration with 5G URLLC, and also TSN, is part of our roadmap; and thus, we should report that we plan to build a new generation of the WMAGW with URLLC/TSN support with more advanced processing HW (i.e., FPGAs). We have added these details in Section 3.3.1.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

This is an interesting work, well done. I have few comments that I recommend you take into account to enhance the manuscript:

• Please proofread the paper as there are some English language errors. For example, in line 46, the word "proper" is repeated two times.
• I recommend adding a section or a paragraph about the security implications for integrating the 5G system. 

Author Response

This is an interesting work, well done. I have few comments that I recommend you take into account to enhance the manuscript:

Please proofread the paper as there are some English language errors. For example, in line 46, the word "proper" is repeated two times.

[Authors’ reply] Thank you very much for the positive review and apologies for the language errors. The English language has been thoroughly checked in the new version of the manuscript.

I recommend adding a section or a paragraph about the security implications for integrating the 5G system.

[Authors’ reply] As suggested, we have written a small paragraph in Section 5, elaborating on general 5G security aspects as well as on security implications of the 5G integration that could be addressed in future versions of the framework.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is extremely interesting, well written. It deals with the very important topic of implementing one of the Industry 4.0 technologies to production companies, which will basically be the main recipients of this type of solutions.

Some comments:

1. Abstract is very informative but please be so kind to specify aim, methodology and the results.

2. Introduction clearly presents the knowledge gap, study motivation as well as the paper structure

3. The paper has necessary literature background

4. Your scientific research is quite interesting and very novel.

5. Please add some more comparisons of your results to the studies already published

6. Please give some more recommendations

I recommend publishing the article after minor revision.

Author Response

The article is extremely interesting, well written. It deals with the very important topic of implementing one of the Industry 4.0 technologies to production companies, which will basically be the main recipients of this type of solutions.

[Authors’ reply] We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive assessment.

Some comments:

1. Abstract is very informative but please be so kind to specify aim, methodology and the results.

[Authors’ reply] We have modified the last part of the abstract to make those aspects clear.

2. Introduction clearly presents the knowledge gap, study motivation as well as the paper structure.
3. The paper has necessary literature background.
4. Your scientific research is quite interesting and very novel.

[Authors’ reply] Thank you very much for the positive review statements.

5. Please add some more comparisons of your results to the studies already published.

[Authors’ reply] Unfortunately, we are not aware of any other studies where the performance of industrial autonomous mobile robots is evaluated from a wireless communication perspective. We have done a thorough review of state-of-the-art but have not been able to find any other empirical studies reported for industrial mobile robots operated over 5G and Wi-Fi 6. We are “front-runners” in the field of the 5G integration and Industry 4.0 wireless performance, where, for the moment, most of the research is done by Industry and not by Academic institutions, which significantly limits the availability of published results.

6. Please give some more recommendations

[Authors’ reply] We are unsure about what kind of recommendations the reviewer is specifically interested in, but we have extended Section 5 with more detailed visions and considerations for future versions of the framework. We hope this action is aligned with the expectations of the reviewer.

I recommend publishing the article after minor revision.

[Authors’ reply] We sincerely thank the reviewer again for the positive review.