An Optimization Design of Hybrid Parking Lots in an Automated Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper extends the traditional automated valet parking lot design and puts forward the parking lot with obstacles of bearing column and charging pile. Based on the principle of traffic separation, the manned and unmanned hybrid parking lot is designed which will exist a long time in the future.
This paper is generally well-organized and easy to follow, and the analytical methods and algorithms are relatively well-presented. Below are my comments for the authors to further revise this paper.
1. m, n represents the number of horizontal and vertical grids, but the article seems to forget to explain. Some similar mistakes need to be fixed.
2. The unique path-driving method, which should refer to 2.1, requires a specific solution in the abstract and text.
3. Another obvious problem with this paper is the insufficient explanation of the simulation results. You need to explain your simulation results in detail and why you got such results.
4. Conclusions need more in it, as it's more of an afterthought. The authors are suggested to highlight significant findings and include afterthoughts of this work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work proposed designs of high-density parking lots in an automated environment: the mobile priority parking lot, the obstacle parking lot, and the hybrid parking lot. The parking lot with obstacles or charging piles proposed by the article considers the scenario of rising demands for electric vehicles in the future. Aiming at the future parking lots that will be mixed with manned and automated vehicles for a long time, the authors put forward the view and understanding of parking lot design, which should not only pursue the scale design without paying attention to the mixed proportion and the influence of obstacle factors.

Overall, this paper has something new about the efficiency of automated valet parking lots and high-density parking in cities. Also, the experiment parts were performed well. However, further clarification of the following questions is needed to polish the article and confirm the rationality of the proposed model.

1. The formula should not be interspersed with the text and should be described separately, as shown in the 2.1

2. Many scholars have researched high-density parking models in the last few years. The paper needs to track these new literatures. Some references can be added to the design of underground parking lots and hybrid parking lots with barriers.

3. The formula of the experiment needs further explanation, and the setting of the traditional parking lot is not introduced

4. The language of the article needs a little polishing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the important topic of high-density parking. Specifically, this paper researches the movement trajectories of automated vehicles in grid parking lots while using beautiful diagrams that are easy to understand and apply. The paper separately proposed the high-density parking lot design under three different scenarios and further considered the rapid growth of electric vehicles and the mixing in the future.

Thus, the originality of the paper is mainly in modeling a high-density parking lot layout. A first general comment is that the introduction might benefit by stating from the very beginning that the concept of “high density and efficiency” is intended in the paper as a layout of the parking lot.

This paper made the following assumptions: (a) All vehicles have the same specifications; (b) All automated vehicles are fully controlled; (c) The traditional parking lot is set according to the author's idea. In fact, these assumptions might be questioned because the “Capacity and density” might not be consistent with reality.

The introduction of the existing parking lots with obstacles, charging piles, and mixed parking lots is insufficient.

The subheadings of sections 3.1 and 3.2 can be changed; It would seem odd to have two similar titles.

The location of obstacles may affect the parking capacity and density, and the site of obstacles is not explained clearly, supplementing the 9*4 parking lot layout with obstacles.

The article's contribution is not significant enough; the meanings of high-density parking should be listed more.

Overall, the paper has some weaknesses that should be addressed and better presented. However, provided its originality, the topic is relevant and worth giving the authors a chance for a major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      The abstract should be revised on the basis of what has been done and what’s new in this research?

2.      There is no comparative analysis made which can compare the efficiency of this study with similar type of studies.

3.      What is novelty of the paper?

4.      How the mathematical model was validated or verified. Give complete validation results.

5.      Add more detailed introduction with the help of latest article published in the field of study.

6.      There are many English Grammer mistakes which should be improved.

7.      The work offers insightful suggestions for future parking, whether the model has been verified practically or not?

8.      Explain eq. 5  further explanation.

9.      The analysis ignores other important factors that affect the adoption of auto-parking. What would be effect of non-guided case.

10.   Discussion of the potential challenges and limitations of the proposed solutions is missing.

 

11.   Why AGV approach was chosen and how it is better as compared to other techniques for the same purpose.

12.   Include list of symbols as a separate list as per publisher guidelines?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are minor changes required to further improve the quality of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully answered the questions one by one in accordance with the requirements of the reviewers, and have carefully revised the article. All the changes in the article are highlighted. I have no further comments.