a review - communication architectures and routing ......the manet and vanet routing protocols are...

GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2020, Online: ISSN 2320-9186

www.globalscientificjournal.com

A Review - Communication Architectures and

Routing Protocols of Flying Ad-hoc network

Dr. P. Shanmugaraja †

, Mr. Mohamed Syed Ibrahim *, Mrs. Mary Theres Vini^

† Prof, ECE Dept Annamalai University- India, *Lecturer, Engg dept Ibra College of Technology-Oman, ^ Lecturer,

Computer science dept Thamirabarani Engg college - India

† [email protected], *[email protected], ^ [email protected]

Keywords—Ad-hoc Network; UAVs; FANETs; Routing

Abstract

With later Technical advance within the field of electronics,

sensors and communication frameworks, the generation of

small UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) got to be

conceivable, which can be utilized for a few militaries,

commercial and civilian applications. However, the

capability of a single and little UAV is inadequate. Multiple-

UAVs can make a framework that's past the limitations of a

single UAV. A Flying Ad hoc Systems (FANETs) is such

kind of arrange that comprises of a bunch of little UAVs

connected in ad-hoc way, which are coordinates into a

group to achieve high level objectives. Versatility, need of

central control, self-organizing and ad-hoc nature between

the UAVs are the main features of FANETs, which seem

extend the network and extend the communication extend at

infrastructure-less range. On one hand, in case of

disastrous circumstances when ordinary communication

framework isn't accessible, FANETs can be used to supply a

quickly deployable, adaptable, self-configurable and

moderately little working costs organize; the other hand

connecting multiple UAVs in ad-hoc organize could be a

huge challenge. This level of coordination requires a fitting

communication architecture and routing protocols that can

be set up on highly dynamic flying hubs in arrange to set up

a solid and robust communication. The most commitment of

this paper incorporate the introduction of reasonable

communication engineering, and an overview of distinctive

directing conventions for FANETs. The open research

issues of existing routing protocols are too investigated in

this paper.

I. Introduction

Much appreciated to the later approach in electronics, sensors

and communication frameworks, the production of little

UAVs (Unmanned aerial Vehicles) has paved the way for the

conception of low-cost Flying ad-hoc network. Owning to the

flexibility, adaptability, generally small operating costly and

simple establishment, the utilization of FANETs has pulled in

more consideration and significance as of late in several

military, commercial and civilian applications like disaster

management [1], emergency administration and unfriendly

environment [2],destroy and look operations [3], border

surveillanceance [4], wildfire administration [5], transferring

systems [6, 7], estimation of wind [8],civil security [9],

agricultural remote sensing [10], traffic checking [11]. For

illustration, in case of calamitous situation, when standard

communication infrastructure collapsed or basically not

accessible, and where it is troublesome to install foundation in

a brief sum of time. FANETs can be used to offer an

effortlessly deployable and self-configured ad-hoc UAVs

organize to put through with the protect teams on the ground.

With the help of its multi-hop ad-hoc systems schema,

FANETs design approves that all the UAVs are

communicated with each other and to the base station

simultaneously without having any pre-defined fixed

infrastructure [12]. In this way, it cannot as it were convey the

aggregated information to the base station right away, but too

having the capability to share it among the associated UAVs.

Moreover, during the operation in case a few of the UAVs are

disengaged due to the climate condition, it can still make their

network to the organize through the other UAVs. Moreover,

due to the ad-hoc networking among the UAVs, it can fathom

the complications like brief extend, organize disappointment

and restricted direction which arise in a single UAV

framework [13]. Indeed in spite of the fact that, such

distinctive qualities make FANETs an suitable arrangement

for different sorts of scenarios, but they moreover bring some

GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2020 ISSN 2320-9186

100

GSJ© 2020 www.globalscientificjournal.com

challenging issues such as communications and organizing of

the different UAVs [14].The speed of a ordinary UAV ranges

from nearly 30-460 km/h with development to 3D-space.As

such, the organize topology will alter quickly that results

connectivity issue [15].Beneath these circumstances,

choosing an appropriate communication design and solid

directing conventions are required to supply strong

communication among the UAVs. Particularly, in this paper

we expressly center on communication structures and steering

conventions that are suitable for tending to the

communications issues between the UAVs. We compare the

characteristics of different communication designs and

steering conventions for networking of the different UAVs,

and talk about their advantages and impediments. The

Comparative examination of our review paper will give offer

assistance to arrange engineers in choosing effective

communication engineering and dependable routing protocols

for FANETs arrangement.

The rest of this paper is organized as takes after. Area II

introduces different communication models for FANETs. In

Area III, we offer broad audit of the existing routing

conventions, taken after by dialog on open research issues of

directing conventions in Segment IV. At last, concluding

remarks are displayed in Segment V.

II.Architecture of Communication approach

A communication design recognizes how information trade

between the base station and a UAV or between the UAVs. In

FANETs design, UAVs render real-time communication in ad

hoc way that can cancel the need for the framework and it

amends the communication range imperative [16]. FANETs

engineering performs significant part in scenarios where real-

time communication and run limitations are fundamental

issues, and where it is difficult to give framework [17]. In

FANETs, as the UAVs connect and segregate to the organize

habitually and, consequently, adhoc network between the

UAVs have been found to be the best solution in most cases.

Also, for fast and robust communication between the UAVs,

decentralized communication engineering is more

appropriate. There are several different communication

models proposed for multi-UAV systems [18], in which we

present three communication architectures for FANETs.

A. Unmanned Air Vehicle Ad-hoc network

In a “UAV advertisement Hoc network” engineering, all the

unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are associated with each

other and the base station independently without having a pre-

existing communications set-up. In this particular design,

each and every UAV will be locked in within the information

forwarding of the FANETs framework. Within the UAV Ad-

hoc organize, a backbone UAV act as a door between the

ground station and the other UAVs as appeared in Fig.1.The

portal UAV carries wireless communication gadgets

competent of working on both a low power, brief extend for

communication with the UAV and a high power, long extend

for communicating with the ground station [19]. In this

structure, since as it were backbone UAV is connected with

the ground station, due to which the communication range of

the organize is essentially amplified. Moreover, the distance

between the numerous UAVs are moderately little, the

transceiver gadget in a UAV will be reasonable and

lightweight, which makes them more suitable for little sized

UAV Network. However, in order to maintain connectivity of

the network persistent, the mobility pattern such as speed and

directions need to be similar for all the connected UAVs in

Flying Ad-hoc Networks (FANETs). Hence, this network

architecture is best suitable for a group of similar and small

size UAVs to pursue persistent operations such as

autonomous aerial surveillance mission [20].

Figure 1: UAV Adhoc network

B. Multi-Group UAV Ad hoc Network

A multi-group UAV ad hoc is basically integration of both

ad-hoc position and a centralized network. In this organize as

appeared within the Fig.2, multiple UAVs are associated in an

ad hoc way inside a group, and the bunches are assist

associated through the backbone UAVs to the ground station

in a centralized manner. Intragroup communication is done

without involving the ground station, but inter-group

communication is performed with the assistance of the ground

station. This sort of UAVs network architecture is appropriate

for cases where huge numbers of UAVs are included in a

mission with distinctive flight and communication

characteristics. Be that as it may, due to its semi centralized

nature, this communication engineering is not robust.


101


Figure 2: Multi group UAV

C. Multi-Layer UAV Ad Hoc Network

A multi-layer UAV ad-hoc arrange is appeared in the Fig.3.In

this communication engineering numerous gather consist of

heterogeneous UAVs frame an ad-hoc organize inside an

individual gather. The lower layer is utilized for

communication between the UAVs and the upper layer is

utilized for communication between the spine UAVs of all the

connected bunches and the ground station. The spine UAV of

each bunch is associated with each other and as it were one

backbone UAV is advance straightforwardly associated to the

ground station. The communication or data trade between

multiple bunches does not have to be include or directed

through the ground station. The ground station as it were

forms that information that's ordained to it, comes about

incredibly diminished the communication stack and

computation on ground station. This communication

engineering is best suited for one-to-many UAVs operation.

Figure 3: Multilayer UAV Adhoc

III. Routing Protocols

The profoundly energetic nature of UAVs in FANETs causes

abrupt changes within the arrange topology and thus makes

routing among the UAVs a vital errand [22]. Considering

UAVto- UAV communication, the directing conventions

plays a imperative role in solid end-to-end information

transport and less directing overhead makes directing an

engaging investigate point within the zone of FANETs. Be

that as it may, the most challenge to plan routing protocols

which is reasonable to all scenarios and conditions is still

under investigate. Within the starting considers and tests of

FANETs, the existing MANET and VANET directing

protocols are favored and explored for FANETs. Be that as it

may, due to the UAVs particular traits, such as quick interface

quality changes and fast development in 3D-space, the

organize steering gets to be a crucial errand [23] and most of

the MANET and VANET routing protocols are not pertinent

straightforwardly for FANETs.

Figure 4: Load Carry and Deliver Routing

i. Static Routing Protocols

ii. Proactive Routing Protocols

iii. Reactive Routing Protocols

iv. Hybrid Routing Protocols

v. Geographic/Position Based Routing Protocols

vi. Hierarchical Routing Protocols

A. Static Routing Protocols

Each UAV features a steering table that isn't upgraded amid

the mission. Static routing protocols are appropriate in cases

when the topology of the organize does not alter and where

the choices in route selection are limited. Here, each UAV

communicate with other the UAVs or the ground station and

stores their data as it were. This leads in reducing the number

of communication links. Be that as it may, in case of a

disappointment for updating the routing table, it is obligatory

to wait until the mission is completed. As a result, there

protocols are not fault tolerant.

1) Load Carry and Deliver Routing (LCAD)

In Load Carry and Deliver Routing (LCAD) [25, 26] model, a

UAV store information from a source ground node, convey

this profitable information by flying to a goal ground node as


102


illustrated in Fig. 4. Indeed, in spite of the fact that at first in

LCAD, a single source and a single-destination situation was

inspected but practically, execution of multiple-source

multiple destination scenarios can too be conceivable

effectively in case required. This routing component is doable

for bulk information exchange and delay tolerant applications

with least bounces [27]. The main objectives of LCAD

steering is to maximize throughput and increase the security.

In any case, the most drawback of this protocol is, at

whatever point the remove increments between the

communicating UAVs, the transmission delay becomes

exceptionally expansive and unfortunate. To diminish the

transmission delay, numerous UAVs can be utilized on the

same path, where remove among the UAVs must be least and

speed of UAVs can be expanded.

2) Multilevel Hierarchical Routing (MLH)

Another set of directing arrangements for FANETs beneath

static routing is the multilevel hierarchical protocols [28].

MLH routing convention is outlined to bargain with the

organize scalability issue. Here, the arrange can be gathered

into a number of clusters assigned completely different

operation areas as outlined in Fig. 5. Each cluster incorporates

a cluster head (CH), which portray the entire cluster and has

connections outside cluster as well. It is also conceivable to

relegate distinctive errands to each cluster within the MLH

network. All the UAVs in a cluster are inside the direct

communication extend of the CH. The CH is directly or

indirectly connected with the upper layer UAVs or satellites.

MLH can produce better execution repercussions in the event

that the UAVs are arranged in numerous swarms with huge

operation region, and multiple UAVs are conveyed within the

arrange. Be that as it may, the most crucial plan issue for

MLH steering is the cluster data.

The high mobility of the UAVs required visit cluster

information, and in this way the versatility expectation

clustering address to fathom this issue with the forecast of the

network topology data by the assistance of the word reference

Tree structure prediction calculation [29] and interface close

time mobility model. In this show, the most elevated

weighted UAV among its neighbours is chosen as the cluster

head. The CH determination criteria can improve the

solidness of the clusters and the Cluster Heads (CHs).

Clustering calculation for UAV systems is displayed in [30].

It assigns the clusters on the ground to begin with, and after

that keep updating updating it during the operation. Ground

clustering determines the clustering arrange, and after that

select the CHs based on the geographical data. Additionally,

fair after the deployment of UAVs, the cluster structure is

calibrated concurring to the mission upgrades.

Figure 5: Multilevel Hierarchical Routing

3) Data Centric Routing(DCR)

Data-centric directing calculations usage on FANETs is

additionally conceivable, where information is asked and

collected with reference to the information characteristics

rather than sender or receiver IDs as appeared in Fig.6.

Clearly, since of the wireless nature of the communication

show of UAVs, multicasting can be favored rather than

unicasting. This routing algorithms can be select when the

information ask is produced by a number of UAVs, and data

distribution is done by on-demand algorithms. DCR can be

utilized in FANETs to supply numerous types of applications

on the homogeneous multi-UAV system in arrange construct

up" to construct up express information from a particular

mission area. Publish-subscribe show is more often than not

substantial for this sort of architecture [31, 32]. It interfaces

automatically to the data producers, which are called

distributers, with information consumers, called subscribers.

The producer node receives which information ought to be

distributed and after that begins data dissemination.

After coming to the distributed information to a UAV in the

organize, it attempts to discover the subscription message on


103


it and then advances that information towards the aiming

UAV. The main benefit of this directing calculation is that it

can as it were reports the registered substance to the

endorsers. Data-centric routing algorithms are decoupled in

three measurements:

•Space decoupling: Communicating UAVs can be anywhere

and knowing each other‟s ID or area isn't mandatory.

•Time decoupling: Communicating UAVs are not required to

be online at the same time and information can be sent to the

subscribers right away or later.

•Flow decoupling: Information conveyance can be finished

reliably by nonconcurrent communication structure.

Figure.6: Data Centric Routing

B. Proactive Routing Protocols

In this sort of directing convention, each node periodically

maintains one or more tables showing the total topology of

the organize. Owing to the proactive nature, this routing

protocol has advantage of having courses quickly accessible

when required. Be that as it may, it endures extra overhead

cost because of protecting up-to-date data and as a

consequence throughput of the organize may be influenced

since control messages are sent out pointlessly indeed when

there is no information activity. For this reason, proactive

routing protocol are not altogether great for exceedingly

energetic mobile and huge UAV systems. Moment, too for

cases when the network topology alters or association

disappointment happens, these routing conventions appears a

moderate response to disappointment. There are various

steering conventions that drop beneath this category [33].

1) Destination- Sequenced Distance Vector

(DSDV)

It is based on Bellman-Ford algorithm with little modification

required by making it more reasonable for UAV adhoc

networks. In DSDV each UAV must recognize everything

about all of the other UAVs associated within the arrange

[34]. The routing table here is intermittently overhauled

almost the entire network with grouping number to avoid

routing loops [35]. The recently utilized course with most

elevated grouping number is given preference over on a

course with least arrangement number. The main benefits of

DSDV are both the effortlessness and the utilization of the

arrangement numbers, which guarantees the circle free data

transmission [36]. In any case, the most disadvantage of this

routing algorithm is the occasional upgrading of up-to-date

directing table, which creates an overhead to the network.

This convention isn't appropriate for profoundly energetic

networks where topology changes more regularly. Moreover,

it back single path directing and does not back multipath

steering.

2) Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR)

Routes are persistently put away and overhauled in tables in

OSLR [37]. Subsequently, at whatever point a course is

required, the protocol determines the course rapidly to all

conceivable goals without any starting delay [38]. With the

point of setting up a communication handle between the

UAVs within the arrange running a convention occurrence,

OLSR employments a one of a kind bundle, which comprises

of more than one message. OLSR bundles can carry three

different type of messages, each one for a particular reason:

HELLO message, which is transmit occasionally to discover

network with neighbour, interface detecting, and MPR signalling; Topology Control (TC) message, which promote

to preserve interface states information and Numerous

Interface Announcement (MID) message, which accomplish

the numerous interface announcement on a node

[39].Therefore, this intermittent flooding behaviour comes

about within the form of expansive overhead.

With the utilize of MPRs instrument in OLSR, the message

overheads can be diminished, and the idleness can be

improved. Because the MPR UAV can as it were forward the

messages during the flooding handle. The sender UAV

indicates a set of MPR UAVs so that the MPR UAVs can

cover two bounce neighbours. A UAV which chooses another

UAV as a MPR UAV part is called MPR selector of that

node.Fig.7 appears the MPR selected by the source UAV. In

any case, the foremost noteworthy design parameters for

OLSR is the number of MPRs, which influences the delay

heightening. Clearly, as the number of MPR shrinks, the

overhead will diminish subsequently. On this way, a new

method is proposed for lessening the number of individuals of

MPR. Fig.8 appears a graph for the recommended DOLSR.

For each sending information parcels, the sender UAV

computes the distance to the recipient UAV, at that point in

case the remove is bigger than the greatest separate that can

be achieved by utilizing the directional radio wire (Dmax/2).


104


Figure 7: Multipoint Relay (MRP)

Figure 8: DOLSR Block Diagram

C. Reactive Routing Protocols

The receptive directing convention (RRP) is additionally

known as on demand routing convention, implies it finds or

keeps up a route on request. The steering table here is

intermittently updated, when there's a few information to

send, if there's no connection between two hubs, there's no

got to calculate a route between them. Hence these steering

conventions hold the routes only that are by and by in utilize

[41], therefore as a result it overcome the overhead issue of

PRP. In this steering model, there are two sorts of messages

produced: (1) Route Request and (ii) Route Reply message

[36]. Route Request message is transmitting from the source

UAV to all adjoining UAVs using flooding instrument to find

the way, and each UAV uses the same approach until it comes

to the goal UAV. While the Route Reply message is initiated

by the destination UAV and goes to the source UAV utilizing

the unicast communication mode. In this steering approach,

there's no ought to revive all tables within the organize.

1) Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)

In [42], Brown et al. developed FANETs test bed with

Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [43] protocol. It allows a

network to be self-configuring, self-organizing and without

the need for having any available infrastructure. The main

objective of choosing DSR is its reactive nature and is mainly

used for multi-hop wireless mesh networks. In DSR the

source only tries to find a path to a destination in a scenario,

whenever it has data to send. DSR is more suitable than

proactive methods for FANETs, where the mobility of the

UAVs is high, and the topology is not stable [44]. Updating a

routing table by a proactive method is not that much optimal

due to the high mobility of the UAVs. However, repetitive

path finding by reactive method before each packet delivery

can also be exhaustive.

2) Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV)

Ad Hoc On-Demand Separate Vector (AODV) is the

enhanced adaptation of both DSDV and DSR steering

conventions. It inherits occasional overhauls from DSDV and

hop-to- jump routing from DSR. Due to the responsive

behaviour, AODV find a route as it were when it is craved

and does not hold courses to destination that are not dynamic

within the communication process [45]. AODV steering

convention comprises of three stages :(i) route revelation (ii)

parcel transmitting (iii) course maintaining. Whenever a

source UAV wishes to send a parcel, it first initiates a course

disclosure operation to distinguish the location of the intended

UAV and after that forward bundle over a decided route

without having a circle amid bundle transmitting stage. Route

maintenance stage take put to re-establish interface

disappointment. This routing convention employments an

arrangement number to discover an up-to-date optimal course

towards the goal.

3) Time-slotted on-demand Routing

Time-slotted on-demand directing convention is also

proposed in [46] for FANETs. This directing calculation is

basically time-slotted form of Ad-hoc On-demand Distance

Vector Directing (AODV) [47]. AODV sends its control

packets on random-access mode, while time-slotted on-

demand protocol hones committed time spaces in which as it

were one UAV can send information bundle. This steering

strategy not as it were increment the usable transmission

capacity productivity, but moreover dodge the packet

collisions and increments the parcel conveyance proportion.

D. Hybrid Routing Protocols

The Hybrid Routing Protocol (HRB) may be a combination of

both proactive and reactive routing protocols, taking the best

features and to overcome the restrictions from both worlds.

Reactive routing conventions by and large needs additional

time to discover route and proactive routing protocols has

huge overhead of control messages. These deficiencies can be


105


mitigated by utilizing HRP. Crossover conventions are

especially appropriate for huge systems, and is based on the

concepts of zones where intra-zone directing is executed with

the assistance of proactive routing and inner-zone routing is

accomplished utilizing the reactive routing approach.

1) Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)

This routing calculation is fundamentally based on the

concept of “zones” [48], and is reasonable for expansive

arrange ranges and diverse mobility patterns. In this steering

approach, each UAV has a different zone, and the zone of

neighbouring UAVs cover. The size of the zone is decided by

a sweep of length “R”. “R” is the number of UAVs to the

border of the zone. The number of UAVs within the zone can

be directed by altering the transmission control of the

UAVs.The steering inside the zone is called as intra-zone

directing. The intra-zone routing uses “proactive routing”

approach to preserve the routes. If the source and goal UAVs

are accessible within the same zone, the source UAV can

begin information communication instantly. The inter-zone

routing is responsible for sending information packets to

outside of the zone, and it utilizes receptive directing

approach to maintain and finding the ideal courses. The delay

caused by the route disclosure is minimized by utilizing

border casting [49]. Reply messages are as it were produced

by border UAVs of a zone. The border UAVs at that point

rehash either by selecting associate- or intra-zone routing as

required.

2) Temporarily Ordered Routing Algorithm

(TORA)

(TORA) is a highly versatile on-demand steering convention,

reasonable for multihop networks. In this steering approach,

each UAVs as it were update routing data approximately

adjoining UAVs. The key highlights of using this steering

calculation is to constrain the engendering of control message

in a exceedingly portable environment in arrange to minimize

quick responses to topological changes [50]. It deletes invalid

routes and looks for unused courses in a single-pass of the

distributed calculation. Especially, TORA employments

receptive routing protocols, but it moreover utilizes proactive

approaches in a few cases. It constructs and keeps up (DAG)

from the source to goal UAV. There are a few courses among

these UAVs in DAG. It is favored for fast computing of new

routes in case of disengaged joins and for enhancing

adaptability [51]. TORA isn't based on the most limited path

algorithm; longer courses are normally used to play down

network overhead. Each UAV has a parameter esteem known

as “height” in DAG, and no two UAVs have the same tallness

esteem. Data flow from the higher UAVs to lower UAVs like

top-down approach. It offers loop-free directing, since of no

information flow towards the higher tallness UAVs. Within

the course disclosure process, this tallness parameter is

returned to the asking UAV, and in this approach all the

middle of the road UAVs keep up their routing tables

concurring to the approaching courses and statures data.

E. Geographic/ Position Based Routing Protocols

Position-based routing protocols have been proposed to

assume information of the geological position data of UAVs

to supports effective directing [52]. In this sort of protocols,

they accept that the source UAV knows approximately the

physical position of the communicating UAVs and sends

message to the goal UAVs without course discovery.

Generally, each UAV decides its claim position with the help

of GPS framework or any other sort of situating office. This

routing calculation is essentially propelled by two subjects:

i) A position facility is ordinarily utilized by the sender of a

packet to find the physical position of the collector and (ii) A

forwarding approach is utilized to forward information

parcels to the intended UAV.

1) Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR)

Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) [53], which is

also a position-based convention, having way better

performance comparatively to proactive and responsive

steering algorithms It was shown that “GPSR sending routing

protocols” are applicable for thickly sent UAVs Arrange. Be

that as it may, the reliability of the arrange can be an extreme

issue in circumstance of sparse deployments. A combination

of other mechanisms, such as confront directing, ought to be

utilized for the applications that target 100% reliability. Be

that as it may, at first for FANETs deployments the existing

MANET directing calculations have tried, in which most are

not well suited for FANETs, due to the UAV distinct

obstruction such as quick variety within the interface quality

and very high mobility of the flying nodes.

2) Geographic Position Mobility Oriented Routing

Geographic Position Portability Oriented Routing (GPMOR)

was displayed for FANETs in [55]. The customary position

based solutions as it were depending on the area data of the

UAVs. Be that as it may, GPMOR moreover figure out the

development of UAVs with “Gaussian-Markov portability

model”, and it utilizes this information to find the following

bounce. It is examined that this routing mechanism can give

information sending successfully with reference to bundle

conveyance proportion and inactivity.

F. Hierarchical Routing Protocols

In hierarchical routing protocols the capacity of choosing

proactive and of responsive steering depend on the various

leveled level of the organize in which a UAV dwells.

This particular routing is primarily decided with a

few proactive arranged courses and then makes a

difference the ask from by activated hubs through reactive

protocol at the lower levels. The most drawback of this

protocol include complexity and plot of tending to which


106


response to activity ask and as a repercussion it wrap the

interconnecting variables.

1) Mobility Prediction Clustering

Algorithm(MPCA)

Mobility Prediction Clustering Algorithm(MPCA) proposed

for UAV organizing [56] based on the traits of UAVs.

It administers on the lexicon of trie-structure prediction

algorithm and interface termination time to illuminate the

issues regarding high versatility of the

UAVs.The fundamental advantage of this algorithm is

to decrease the instability of clustering and improves

the arrange execution.

2) Clustering Algorithm of UAV networking

Clustering algorithm is based to overcome the difficulty of

managing out of locate UAVs. In case of multi

UAV framework, it constructs clusters on the ground, and

after that alter it within the space

to progress the steadiness and adaptability of near-space

clusters [57].

IV. Issues for Open research

Due to the quick versatility of UAVs, topology of the network

change quickly in FANETs that constitutes steering issue

among the UAVs. Since of this one of a kind FANETs

challenge, the existing MANET and

VANET directing conventions fall flat to meet all the

FANETs prerequisites. The directing calculations and

protocols should be advanced sufficient to upgrade routing

tables powerfully agreeing to the topological changes. Peerto-

peer network is required for collaborative coordination,

congestion control and collision avoidance among the UAVs

in FANETs. Be that as it may, it is

additionally conceivable to utilize FANETs in the form

of remote sensor systems to accumulate data from the

environment, which make distinctive activity design. All the

data are directed among a restricted number of UAVs that are

directly connected to a foundation. At the same time,

developing new directing calculations are too required that

can support peer to peer networks. Within the show time,

FANETs is still relatively an unused research range,

where modern routing algorithms affected and previous ones

are adjusted. Sum of the calculations is adequate, which can

be depicted by the requirements diversity and the attributes of

transmitted information. Information centric routing is an

optimistic approach for FANETs. With the back of the

publish-subscribe design of information centric algorithms, it

might be promising to make multi-UAV systems that can

validate different application scenarios. To the extent of our

understanding, data centric routing algorithm isn't examined

yet completely.

V. Conclusion

FANETs have ended up a developing research field, which

consists of a bunch of little UAVs associated in ad-hoc mode.

Such systems are recognized by a high mobility, frequent

topology changes and 3D-space movement of the nodes,

which constitutes organizing issues. In order to overcome

such kind of issues, choosing an appropriate communication

architecture and reliable routing protocols are required to

authenticate robust communication between the UAVs.In this

paper, we to begin with introduced three different

decentralized communication models, in which we proposed a

multi-layer UAV ad hoc network more reasonable for

FANETs. In this way, we explored different routing

protocols alongside open inquire about issues. We trust this

investigation will offer assistance organize engineers for

FANETs deployment. We moreover accept that FANETs will

be ubiquitous technology within the future.

VI. References

[1] M. Erdelj, E. Natalizio,K.R. Chowdhury and I.F Akyildiz,

“Help from the sky:Leveraging UAVs for disaster

management,” IEEE Pervasive Computing ,vol.16, Issue: 1,

March 2017 .

[2] ANCHORS project. "[Online]. Available:

http://anchorsproject.org/index.

php/en/home/14-das-projekt -i m-ueherhl ick17 -

projectoverview.htm!.

[Accessed on 02 February 2016].

[3] J. George, P.B. Sujit and J. Sousa, “Search strategies for

multiple UAV search and destroy missions,” Journal of

Intelligent and Robotics Systems 61 (2011), pp.355–367.

[4] Z. Sun, P. Wang, M.C. Vuran, M. Al-Rodhaan, A. Al-

Dhelaan and I.F. Akyildiz, “BorderSense: border patrol

through advanced wireless sensor networks,” Ad Hoc

Networks 9 (3) (2011),pp. 468–477.

[5] C. Barrado, R. Messeguer, J. Lopez, E. Pastor, E.

Santamaria and P. Royo, “Wildfire monitoring using a mixed

air-ground mobile network,” IEEE Pervasive Computing 9 (4)

(2010),pp. 24–32.

[6] E.P. de Freitas, T. Heimfarth, I.F. Netto, C.E. Lino, C.E.

Pereira, A.M. Ferreira, F.R. Wagner and T. Larsson, “UAV

relay network to support WSN connectivity,” ICUMT, IEEE,

2010, pp. 309–314.

[7] F. Jiang and A.L. Swindlehurst,“Dynamic UAV relay

positioning for the ground-to-air uplink,” IEEE Globecom

Workshops, 2010.

[8] A. Cho, J. Kim, S. Lee and C. Kee, “Wind estimation and

airspeed

calibration using a UAV with a single-antenna GPS receiver

and pitot

tube,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic

Systems 47 (2011),pp.109–117.

[9] I. Maza, F. Caballero, J. Capitan, J.R. Martinez-De-Dios

and A. Ollero, “Experimental results in multi-UAV

coordination for disaster

management and civil security applications,”Journal of

Intelligent andRobotics Systems 61 (1–4) (2011),pp.563–585.


107


[10] H. Xiang and L. Tian, “Development of a low-cost

agricultural remote sensing system based on an autonomous

unmanned aerial vehicle,” Biosystems Engineering 108 (2)

(2011), pp.174–190.

[11] E. Semsch, M. Jakob, D. Pavlicek and M. Pechoucek,

“Autonomous UAV Surveillance in Complex Urban

Environments,” Web Intelligence, 2009, pp. 82–85.

[12] Bekmezci, M Ermis and S Kaplan, “Connected multi

UAV task planning for flying ad hoc networks,”

Communications and Networking

(BlackSeaCom), IEEE International Black Sea Conference,

2014, pp. 28- 32.

[13] V. Sharma and R. Kumar, “A cooperative network

framework for multi- UAV guided ground ad hoc networks,”

Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 77, no. 3, pp.

629–652, Mar. 2015.

[14] Bekmezci, O. K. Sahingoz, and S. Temel, “Flying ad-hoc

networks(FANETs): A survey,”Ad Hoc Networks vol. 11, no.

3, pp. 1254-1270,

2013. [15] E. W. Frew and T. X. Brown, “Networking issues

for small unmanned aircraft systems,'' J. Intell. Robot. Syst.,

vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 21-37, 2008. [16] L. Gupta, R. Jain, and G.

Vaszkun, “Survey of important issues in UAV

communication networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys &

Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1123–1152, 2015.

[17] Bekmezci, İ., and Ulku, E, “Location information

sharing with multi token circulation in flying Ad Hoc

networks,” Proceedings of 7th International Conference on

Recent Advances in Space Technologies (RAST) Istanbul,

Turkey,2015.

[18] Jun Li, Yifeng Zhou and L. Lamont, “Communication

architectures and protocols for networking unmanned aerial

vehicles,” IEEE Globecom Workshops, pp. 1415–1420, 2013.

[19] O. Sahingoz, “Mobile networking with UAVs:

Opportunities and

challenges,” in Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2013

International Conference on, May 2013, pp. 933–941.

[20] R. W. Beard, T. W. Mclain, D. B. Nelson, D. Kingston

and D. Johanson, “Decentralized cooperative aerial

surveillance using fixed wing miniature UAVs,” Proceedings

of the IEEE, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 1306 - 1324, July 2006.

[21] E. A Marconato, D. F Pigatto,C. Branco, J. A Maxa, N.

Larrieu, et al, “IEEE 802.11n vs. IEEE 802.15.4: A study on

communication QOS to provide safe FANETs”, 46th annual

IEEE/IFIP international conference on dependable systems

and networks workshop (DSN-W), june 2016, pp.184-191.

[22] W. Zafar and Bilal M. Khan, “Flying ad-hoc networks:

Technological and social implications,” IEEE Technol. Soc.

Mag., vol. 35, no. 2, pp 67-74, June 2016.

[23] K. Zhang, W. Zhang, and J.-Z.Zeng, “Preliminary Study

of Routing and

Date Integrity in Mobile Ad Hoc UAV Network,” in

Apperceiving

Computing and Intelligence Analysis, 2008.ICACIA 2008.

International

Conference on, Dec 2008, pp. 347–350.

[24] M. H. Tareque, M. S. Hossain, and M. Atiquzzaman,

„„On the routing in flying ad hoc networks,‟‟ in Proc.

Federated Conf. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. (FedCSIS), pp. 1–9,

Sep. 2015.

[25] Cheng, C.M., Hsiao, P.H., Kung, H.T., Vlah, D.:

Maximizing throughput of UAV-relaying networks with the

load-carry-and-deliver paradigm. In: IEEE Wireless

Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC 2007)

(2007).

[26] Le, M., Park, J.S., Gerla, M.: UAV Assisted disruption

tolerant routing. In: Military Communications Conference,

MILCOM 2006, pp. 1–5 (2006)

[27] Jonson, T., Pezeshki, J., Chao, V., Smith, K., Fazio, J.:

Application of Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) in airborne

networks. In: IEEE Military Communications Conference-

(MILCOM 2008), pp. 1–7 (2008).

[28] Lamont, G.B., Slear, J.N., Melendez, K.: UAV swarm

mission planning and routing using multi-objective

evolutionary algorithms. In: IEEE Symposium on

Computational Intelligence in Multicriteria Decision Making,

pp. 10–20 (2007)

[29] C. Konstantopoulos, D. Gavalas, G. Pantziou, A mobility

aware technique for clustering on mobile ad-hoc networks, in:

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Distributed

Computing and Networking, ICDCN‟06, Springer-Verlag,

Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 397–408.

[30] L. Kesheng, Z. Jun, Z. Tao, The clustering algorithm of

UAV networking in near-space, in: 8th International

Symposium on Antennas, Propagation and EM Theory, 2008

(ISAPE 2008), 2008, pp. 1550–1553.

[31] J. Ko, A. Mahajan, R. Sengupta, A network-centric UAV

organization for search and pursuit operations, Aerospace

Conference Proceedings, 2002, vol. 6, IEEE, 2002, pp. 2697–

2713.

[32] J. Lopez, P. Royo, E. Pastor, C. Barrado, E. Santamaria,

A middleware architecture for unmanned aircraft avionics, in:

Proceedings of the 2007 ACM/IFIP/USENIX International

Conference on Middleware Companion, MC ‟07, ACM, New

York, NY, USA, 2007, pp. 24:1–24:6

[33] P. L. Yang, C. Tian, and Y. Yu, “Analysis on optimizing

model for proactive ad hoc routing protocol," in Proc.

Military Commun. Conf.

(MILCOM), vol. 5, Atlantic City, NJ, USA, pp. 2960-2966,

Oct. 2005.

[34] Muneer Bani Yassein and “Nour Alhuda” Damer “Flying

Ad-HocNetworks: Routing Protocols, Mobility Models,

Issues,” International

Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,

vol. 7, no. 6, pp.162-168, 2016.

[35] Perkins, C.E., Bhagwat, P.: Highly dynamic

estinationSequencedDistance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for

mobile computers. In: proceedings of the Conference on

Communications Architectures, Protocols and

Applications (SIGCOMM „94), pp. 234–244 (1994).

[36] OKSahingoz. “Routing ptocols in flying Ad-hoc

networks (FANETs): Concepts and challenges”. Journal of

Intelligent & Robotic Systems, pp.513-27. April 2014.

[37] Singh, J.; Mahajan, R. Performance analysis of AODV

and OLSR usingOPNET. Int. J. Comput. Trends Technol.

2013, 5, 114–117.


108


[38] PJacquet, T.Clausen, L. Viennot, "Optimized link state

routing [OLSR]protocol for adhoc network", in proceedings

of IEEE Multi Topic Conference, lNMlC, March 2001.

[39] A. Zaballos, A. Vallejo, G. Corral and J. Abella, “Ad-

Hoc Routing

Performance Study Using OPNET Modeler,” Barcelona,

2006.

[40] A.I. Alshabtat, L. Dong, J. Li, F. Yang, “Low latency

routing algorithm for unmanned aerial vehicles ad-hoc

networks”, International Journal of Electrical and Computer

Engineering 6 (1), 2010, pp. 48–54.

[41] Habib, S., Saleem, S., & Saqib, K. M., “Review on

MANET routing

protocols and challenges”, IEEE Student Conference on

Research and Development SCOReD , pp. 529-533 , 2013.

[42] T. Brown, S. Doshi, S. Jadhav, D. Henkel, R.

Thekkekunnel, A full scale wireless ad hoc network test bed,

in: Proc. of International Symposium on Advanced Radio

Technologies, Boulder, CO, 2005, pp. 50–60.

[43] D.B. Johnson, D.A. Maltz, Dynamic source routing in ad

hoc wireless networks, in: T. Imielinski, H.F. Korth (Eds.),

Mobile Computing, The Kluwer International Series in

Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 353, Springer, US,

1996, pp. 153–181.


109


a review - communication architectures and routing ......the manet and vanet routing protocols are...

Documents