Investigation of the Signal Reach Performance of the Ultra-High-Frequency Identification Tag for Underground Utility Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed paper concerns a new type of underground utilities detection using wltra-high frequency radio waves. Some results of preliminary studies in indoor laboratory conditions are presented. The topic seems to be interesting and consistent with current research trends. However, the form of presentation is quite confusing. Therefore, I propose a major revision. I have listed my doubts.

*Lines 35-35 This statement, especially its end, is hard to understand. 

*Line 42 What means (p.p.)?

* Section 3. - The description lacks some pictures of the test setup and some scheme of it. The analysis of the further plots can be misleading. Besides, there are no information on the asphalt used.

*Line 209 - The RSSI symbol is not explained nor defined. What is its physical meaning?

*Line 229 - The Figure numbering is wrong. The differences between different moistures are not very significant.

* The structure of the paper is inconsistent. There are separate paragraphs "Introduction" and "Background", which repeat a lot of information. On the contrary, there is no "Discussion" paragraph... On the other hand, the amount of presented outcomes is fairly limited, so it can be hard to write additional paragraph. 

Author Response

Thank you for the comment.

- Line 35, Line 42, line 229 is revised as your comment.

- Including experimental setup and RSSI, information has been added overall.

- The background and conclusion have been rewritten.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the abstract, in the last line, please inform what are the main implications of the study.

Please avoid lumped refs.

There are long parts of text without any ref, please amend.

Please formaly pinpoint what is the research gap your study aims to bridge and enunciate formaly your purpose. Also, declare the research method at the end of the Introduction.

Sections 2 and 3 are fine.

in the results, please add a linear regression model to fig. 2. Perhaps the same would be useful to fig 4. Please consider and discuss eventual relationships that emerge from the models. Also, I believe you could calculated confidence intervals to he data of fig 2. Fig 5 could also be enriched by statistical evaluations, such as confidence intervals and R2.

Conclusion requires deep evaluation of the implications. Whats next? Whowins what and why upon your findings?

The number of refs is too small for an article of a top journal. Please enlarge and improve your refs support.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the comment.
- The background and conclusion have been rewritten.
- Because RSSI is logarithmic, linear regression is not possible.
  Therefore, the definition of RSSI has been added.
- References are added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the made amendments. The text seems to be much more clearer. However, I found some minor mistakes.

* Line(51) - A repeated sentence. 

* Eq. (1) - Symbols tau, lambda are not explained. Under the equation there is the G_r symbol, which is not used in the equation.  Please, check the equation (2) as well. Meaning of some symbols is not clear for me. 

Author Response

• A repeated sentence is removed.
• Equation (1) and (2) are revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Small issues remain:

you does not have to write Equation 1, but (1) at the side of the equations;

in figure 5, please reduce the scale of the y axis to highlight the variation of the variable.

merge the last two sections in a single one

 

Author Response

• Equation number are changed.
• The scale of the figure 5 is reduced.
• The last two sections are merged.