Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented a work on simulating warehouse communications in 60GHz using NS-3. The following comments authors should consider for further improvement.

1. The results are necessary to verify against analytical results. It is necessary to show how much the generated results deviate from analytical results.

2. After reviewing the related work it is not clear what the motivation behind the study. The authors should give more elaboration on motivation.  

3. Line 157 is not necessary (as has already been mentioned).

4. Section 4.1 first paragraph can be reduced removing too much detail about NS-3.

5. Reference is not cited on line 220

6. Fig. should be written as Figure. Please check the journal formatting.

7. What kind of modulation scheme was considered in the experiment? How does the modulation scheme choice affect the overall performance?

8. It is not clear why the dynamic AMHA delay has same delay as static AMHA?

9. Check lines 384,435 60GHz.

10. There are typos please check the manuscript carefully.

Some typos should be checked carefully.

Author Response

We extend our appreciation to the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments on the manuscript. To address the concerns, we have made extensive edits to the manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have submitted a revised PDF version of the manuscript, which includes all of your valuable suggestions and corrections to the best of our abilities.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study examines network connectivity in an automated warehouse using Network Simulator-3 channel simulations, focusing on LOS and nLOS propagation paths, reflective materials, and autonomous material handling agents. The manuscript demands the following improvements.

1.      Please note that “Hao Xu, et al.[? ]” in 219 lacks a reference.

2.      The author should include a discussion about other related frequency band results.

3.      The related work section is too short. Many channel measurement-based results are available with practically measured datasets in indoor environments. Therefore, what is the reliability of the simulated and measured results?

4.      What is the research gap between the simulation study and the practical environment propagation model at 60 GHz channel?

5.      What is the “Numerology” parameter in Table 4?

6.      The authors should discuss SINR, throughput, mean delay, and other parameters.

7.      The authors must justify their simulated results with practical measurement results available in the literature at 60 GHz bands.

8.      The authors need to clarify the simulated values they considered. They need to explain how the considered dataset was developed.

9.      Please write appropriately “60GHz” in line 435.

 

10.   Do the authors consider the “product types” in the warehouse? A different product box can impact the path loss and delay profile at 60 GHz bands.

The English looks fine, The author should double check the spelling and grammars.

Author Response

We extend our appreciation to the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments on the manuscript. To address the concerns, we have made extensive edits to the manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have submitted a revised PDF version of the manuscript, which includes all of your valuable suggestions and corrections to the best of our abilities.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have substantially improved the manuscript through revision. I recommend acceptance.

No issue detected.