Content uploaded by Sunil Maakar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sunil Maakar on Jan 30, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Sunil Maakar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sunil Maakar on Jan 30, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Flying Ad Hoc Network: A Newest Research Area
for Ad Hoc Networks
Sunil Kr. Maakar
Deparment of Computer Science and
Engineering,
I.K. Gujral Punjab Technical University,
Jalanndhar, India
sunil.makkar@gmail.com
Yudhvir Singh
Department of Computer Science and
Engineering,
MD University,
Rohtak, India
dr.yudhvirs@gmail.com
Rajeshwar Singh
Department of Electronics and
Communication Engineering,
Doaba Group of Colleges,
Nawanshahr, India
rajeshwar.rajata@gmail.com
Abstract—Flying Ad-hoc Network (FANET) is a special
class of MANET that provides the communication among
small flying drones called UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle)
enable with camera, sensor and communication system. The
FANET nodes communicate with each others in the air;
transfer the data and signals between each other without any
human experts and without any physical connectivity between
the nodes. FANET has a wide area of applications like
reconnaissance and surveillance for military and civil
purposes. In this paper, flying ad-hoc network architecture is
presented along with its usages, characteristics, advantages,
routing protocols and mobility models. Along with delineates
open research issues with dissecting openings and future work
are also discussed.
Keywords—FANET, UAVs, VANET, MANET, Research
Isuues.
I. INTRODUCTION
In FANET, UAVs and flying aircraft act as nodes which
communicate with each other when they fly in the air
without any physical connection. It is the special form of
wireless ad hoc network in which nodes fly in the air, and
while flying in the air they communicate with each other,
transfer the data and signals between each other without any
human experts and without any physical connectivity
between the nodes [1-2]. A typical architecture of FANET is
shown in figure 1.
Fig. 1. Flying Ad-Hoc Network
Although single-UAV frameworks have been used for a
considerable length of time, rather than creating and working
with one large UAV, utilizing a gathering of little UAVs
(FANET) has numerous points of interest. In Flying Ad-Hoc
Network (FANET), the node called UAVs are connected in
ad hoc manner is overviewed as a new network family.
Flying ad hoc networks (FANETs) made out with little
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) nodes and UAVs are
adaptable, speedy to organize and reasonable in cost. This
makes them an exceptionally appealing innovation for some
and normal citizen applications [3].
FANET can be characterized as another type of mobile
ad-hoc network wherein, the hubs or nodes are called UAVs.
As indicated by this characterization, solitary UAV
frameworks can’t shape a FANET; it is substantial just for
multi UAVs frameworks. On the further aspects, not every
multi UAVs frameworks formed a FANET. The data
transmission among UAVs is possible with the help of an ad
hoc network among FANETs nodes. Accordingly, if the
communications among UAVs completely depends on UAV
to fixed infrastructures, it cannot be delegated a FANET.
The term FANET quickly reminds that this is a specific
type of VANET and MANET [3]. By following these lines,
we propose to consider it as a flying ad hoc network, the
FANET.
FANET can also be called a subset of VANET, which is
also a subset of MANET, as shown in figure 2.
Fig. 2. MANET, VANET and FANET
II. COMPARISONS AMONG FANET, VANET AND
MANET
The correlation among FANETs, VANETs and
MANETs is plainly expressed in the overview which is
appeared in Table 1.
TABLE I. COMPARISONS OF FANET, VANET AND MANET [3]
Parameters FANET VANET MANET
Nodes Speed Very High High Low
Mobility Model
Regular for
preplanned routes,
but unique for self-
governing network
Regular Random
Nodes Density Very Low High Low
Topology
Changes Fast Fast Slow
Radio
transmission
LoS is available
for most No LoS No LoS
2019 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Communication and Computational Techniques (ICCT)
M
anipal University Jaipur, Sep 28-29, 2019
978-1-7281-1711-9/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 298
Model
Network Life
Time and Power
Consumption
Energy efficient
for mini UAV
Not
needed
Energy
Efficient
protocols
Localization
GPS, DGPS,
AGPS
GPS,
AGPS,
DGPS
GPS
Computational
Power High High Limited
III. USAGE OF FANETS
Some of the area in which FANET is used as follows [4-
11]:
x In Military: FANET are helpful in military
administrations. Setting up a quick connection for
communication in the military battlefield is very
troublesome. So FANETs are utilized for information
communication among officers, soldiers and military
central command.
x Tragedy Handling: FANET is valuable when the
current communication infrastructure harmed because
of a catastrophic event like fire, earthquake, floods,
etc.
x In Search and Rescue Task: FANET can be utilized
to give a superior method to do inquiry and salvage
tasks, for example, salvage activity of prisoners.
x In Sensor Networks: Various sensor gadgets can be
utilized to gather information to do day by day works
like terrestrial movement tracking, climate
anticipating, etc.
x Security Purpose: Due to the capability of quick
deployment and fast communication in FANET. It
can likewise be utilized to gather data for security
reason.
x Area Wise Services: FANETs can be used in the
following services.
9 Can act as a movement guide for travelers
9 Forwarding calls to any area
9 To recognize information with respect to
the particular area
IV. ADVANTAGES OF FANET
Some of the advantages of Multi-UAVs network [12]
are:
x Cost: The price of a little UAV is much lesser than
the price of one extensive UAV and the maintenance
expense is lower as well.
x Scalability: It can boost the activities done by the
system by adding more UAVs to the network
progressively as per the user needs.
x Survivability: There is no effect on the FANETs
operation if one UAV fails because other UAVs take
responsibility and perform the task continuously
without any interrupt.
x Speed-up: The operation can be finished quicker
with a large number of UAVs. The requested service
is available faster than a single UAV.
V. FANETSCHARACTERISTICS
Many common design considerations exist in MANET
and FANETs. Some FANET characteristics are shown in
detail in the following points [13]:
x Node Speed: In FANET, the speed of the node is
30-460 km/h and this causes the problem of
communication among UAVs. The node mobility is
very high in FANET as compare to VANET and
MANET.
x UAVs Density: The number of flying nodes (UAVs)
in a particular zone is called UAV density. In
FANETs, it must be a meager thickness with a
substantial separation among UAVs as per the idea
of the flying node.
x Mobility Models: For fix or predetermined map, the
UAV route is preplanned and at each step, the flying
nodes change the direction and speed according to a
predetermined path. Other mobility models are used
for a specific mission and used random direction and
speed for the UAVs.
x Network Topology: Due to the higher speed of
UAVs in FANET, topology changed very frequently
and the communication among UAVs broken
rapidly. So frequent update is required to maintain
the communication between UAVs.
x Network Lifetime and Power Consumption:
Network lifetime is a critical trouble for fanet’s,
which incorporates of battery-controlled processing
gadgets. Conversation system applied in fanets is
fueled by means of uav electricity source itself. So
fanets structure isn't always powered touchy as
examine to manet utility, but nevertheless, it's miles
an difficulty in mini uavs.
x Localization: Localization manner figuring out the
region for each uav. In keeping with excessive pace
and rapidly trade in vicinity, there may be a demand
for enormously localization records with little
interims of time. By using gps, the statistics about
the new areas may be propagated to the network
each second, and this isn't good enough. Therefore,
every uav need to be containing a gps and
preliminary estimation unit to communicate his
region to all uavs within the fanet at any time.
x Radio Propagation Model: As indicated via the
nature of fanets environment and the huge distances
amongst uavs node. The flying nodes use a line-of-
sight amongst them and with a floor base station.
Conversely, with manet, it does not make use of any
radio signal among flying nodes.
VI. ROUTING IN FANET
For wireless ad hoc networks many routing protocols are
introduced in the literature [14-16] for example, dynamic
source routing, pre-compiled routing, routing on demand,
routing based on clusters, flooding routing and so forth.
299
FANETs are a subgroup of VANETs and MANETs;
therefore, initially classic MANETs routing algorithms are
favored and tried for FANET. Due to explicit problems with
UAVs, for example, rapid changes in connection quality, the
vast majority of these existing algorithms are not specifically
appropriate for FANET. Therefore, to embrace this new
network system, some specific ad-hoc network protocols and
some previous one have been examined.
A. Properties of Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols
The wanted properties for routing protocols of Ad-Hoc
Networks are [17]:
x Distributed Operations: The routing protocol
should not be depend on central controlling node
rather it should be distributed. Due to the high
mobility of UAVs in FANET, the network can be
partitioned.
x Energy Preservation: The nodes in the FANETs
can be mini UAVs and small drones. So mini UAVs
does not require more power. But for small drones,
the routing protocol should energy efficient and
supports the sleep modes when nodes are in a
passive state.
x Request Based Operation: To limit the misuse of
FANET’s resources and reduce the control overhead
the protocol should be work whenever there is
demand or on-demand. This implies that the protocol
ought to respond just when required and should not
periodically broadcast the control packets.
x Quality of Service Routing: QoS is very important
for routing protocol. According to the application
area, protocols should support or integrated with
some kind of quality of services, for example, real-
time traffic support.
x Free from Loop: To enhance the general
performance of networks, the routing protocols must
confirm that the paths provided are free from any
types of loop. This keep stays away from any misuse
of communication bandwidth or CPU utilization.
x Communication Mode: Sometimes radio condition
can cause the development of unidirectional
connections. So for better performance, the routing
protocol must support unidirectional with
bidirectional communication.
x Security: Since the wireless radio communication
environment is particularly vulnerable to attack,
certain types of security interventions are necessary
to ensure the essential execution of the routing
protocol. Cryptography and authentication represent
the best approach and the main issue here in the key
distribution between the UAVs node of FANET.
x Multiple Routes: The protocol should use multiple
routes so that reaction after congestion and
topological changes can be reduced. If one path from
source UAV to destination UAV becomes illogical,
it is conceivable that another exist route may
possibly be present or valid. Therefore, the routing
protocol does not start the discovery process for the
new route and resources can be saved.
B. Complications in Routing with FANETs
The following are the problems of routing in FANETs
[18]:
x Asymmetric Connections: The majority of the
wired network depends on the symmetric
connections which are constantly settled. But in ad-
hoc networks, the UAVs are mobile and
continuously changing their position very quickly
within the network.
x Routing Overheads: In FANETs, UAVs frequently
changes their area inside networks. As a result, some
new obsolete paths are created in the routing tables,
resulting in unnecessary extra routing overheads.
x Interferences: This is the serious issue with
FANETs, since connections establishments and
break depend upon the communication
characteristic, one UAVs transmission would
possibly collide with other one and UAV would
possibly overhear transmissions of other UAVs and
can drop the whole transmissions.
x Dynamic Topology: Because the topology is not
stable; so that the UAV can travel and the average
attributes can change. Due to the highly dynamic
nature of the FANETs, routing table has to adjust
these change and routing protocols need to be
updated. For example, in permanently wired
networks, routing table refreshing happens after
every 30sec. This refreshing recurrence should be
very low for FANETs.
VII. MOBILITY MODEL FOR FANET
The performance evaluations of FANET in order to
predict the conceivable issues that can influence the
communication framework are possible by test bed or
network simulator. In test-beds the real environment is
required for protocol experimentation. But test-bed has few
disadvantages [19]; mainly the lack of flexibility, difficulty
in deploying, managing and the experiment are very
expensive. On the other hand, simulations approach allows
an easy method to deploy and monitor the network since it
consists of synthetic environments with model experiment
[19].
The mobility models are an important parameter used in
a simulation environment [20]. The speed variations and
trajectories for flying nodes are defined by the mobility
model during simulation. Many mobility models are
designed to recreate the real scenarios for the ad-hoc
network. Therefore, the mobility model plays a very
significant task in the assessment of the FANET [20].
Mobility Models used to mimic the real movement of the
flying node during network simulations. Their accuracy is an
important factor in determining the reliability and the
accuracy of simulation results. The movement pattern of
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in FANETs depends on
the mobility model that they are being used in the simulation.
3D environment is the crucial need to implement the real
scenario of FANET.
300
VIII. OPEN CHALLENGES AND ISSUES
A FANET is to some extent unique compared to
conventional MANETs and VANETS; however, the central
thought is the equivalent: to have portable nodes and to
network in an ad hoc way. Thus, in FANETs, some
difficulties are legitimate the same as in VANETs whilst face
additional difficulties.
FANETs alongside its exceptional highlights have a few
difficulties and issues that should be considered [12 [21]:
x National Ordinance: UAVs are gradually being
used in many fields of application and find their
place in the era of advanced data. The air rules in
most countries do not permit the FANET node to be
moved in the national airspace. This can be
considered the biggest obstacle to the growth of
UAVs network in civil airspace. In this sense, it is
really necessary to define separate rules and policy
so that the FANET node can be used in the national
airspace without any problem.
x Routing: The network topology changes very
rapidly in FANET because of the movement speed
of UAVs. The exchange of information between
UAVs is facing a serious problem, which is not the
same as the low mobility environments. The routing
table must be updated according to the changes take
place in the topology of the network. The majority of
the MANETs routing protocols are not suitable for
reliable communication among UAVs. Thus, it is
necessary to design new routing methods and a
network model for building an adaptive and
responsive network.
x Incorporation with Information Grid (IG): IG is
an overall observation network and PC framework
proposed to give Internet-like capacity that permits
anybody associated with IG to work together with
different clients and the procedure and transmit data
whenever and anyplace in the world. A FANET
should interface with future Information Grids which
is one of the primary sources of information to
enhance the productivity of UAS by utilizing a
UAV’s communication packages, sensor, hardware
suites, etc.
x Route Planning: For multi-UAV task and in a large
mission area, coordination and cooperation among
UAVs are not only desirable but also vital
component to build the effectiveness. In the task
theatre, there can be some unique changes like
physical static snags, expansion/expulsion of UAVs,
dynamic dangers (for example versatile radars), etc.
In such cases, each UAV has to change its past route,
and new ones ought to be re-determined
progressively. In this manner, new
strategies/algorithms for unique route planning are
required to organize the armadas of UAVs packet
loss, jitter, etc. Designing an extensive system for
QoS-empowered middleware is an essential issue
that should be defeated because of the exceedingly
mobile and dynamic nature of FANET.
x Coordination of Manned Aircraft and UAVs: It is
expected that, in the future, the number of UAV
flights with other aircraft will be increased. This
coordination will empower the obliteration of enemy
aircraft with insignificant misfortunes. In the
meantime, these UAVs can be used as electronic
jammers and for real-time video observation in
adversary zone. Therefore, the joint collaboration of
UAVs and manned aircraft should be in a networked
environment.
x Standardize UAVs: UAVs in FANET use different
wireless frequency bands, for example, UHF, VHF,
C-band, L-band, Ku-band, etc. These bands
additionally used in various application territories
like satellite communication, GSM networks, etc. To
reduce the frequency collision problem, it is
necessary to institutionalize these communication
bands, multiplexing models and signal modulations.
x UAV Placements: UAVs are small and can carry
limited payloads, such as infrared cameras, solitary
radar, image sensors, thermal imaging cameras, and
more. If it is necessary to use separate sensors, these
must be stacked on different UAVs, for example,
one UAV can be stacked with a high-resolution
camera, while another UAV is equipped with an
infrared camera. This allows us to take different
pictures of the same thing. Therefore, placements of
UAVs node to reduce power consumption remain an
open problem.
x UAV Mobility Model: For the FANET simulation,
the mobility model plays an important role and is
one of the characteristics of the simulation
environment. The mobility models define the
variations in speed and direction of the nodes in the
journey; and represent their positions, which
generate changes in the topology of the network and
thus disturbances of the communication since new
connections will be established and others
interrupted. Thus, the mobility model plays an
important role in evaluating the performance of the
ad hoc network of UAVs. Therefore, the design of
specific FANET mobility models for 3D simulation
remains an open problem.
x Security: There is a need for a secure and reliable
framework for FANET communication.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have introduced FANET, its
applications, characteristics, routing protocol, mobility
model and some of the open issues in the Flying Ad Hoc
Network. This paper can serve a guiding path to the
researcher to find the open issues and the areas which needs
to be researched in the Flying ad hoc network.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Muller, “Flying Adhoc Network”, Proc. 4th Seminar on Research
Trends in Media Informatics,” Institute of Media Informatic, Ulm
University, Ulm, Germany, pp. 53-59, 2012.
[2] S. Maakar, Y. Singh, and R. Singh, “Considerations and Open Issues
in Flying Ad Hoc Network”, Inter. J. of Sci. Engg. & Res. (IJSER),
5(7), pp. 397-402, 2017.
[3] I. Bekmezci, O.K. Sahingoz and S. Temel, “Flying Ad-Hoc Networks
(FANETs): A Survey”, Ad Hoc Networks, 11(3), pp. 1254–1270,
2013.
301
[4] J. George, P. B. Sujit and J. Sousa, “Search Strategies for Multiple
UAV Search and Destroy Missions”, J. of Intell. and Robot. Syst., 61
(1-4), pp. 355–367, 2011.
[5] Z. Sun, P. Wang, M.C. Vuran, M. Al-Rodhaan, A. Al-Dhelaan, and
I.F. Akyil, “BorderSense: Border Patrol Through Advanced Wireless
Sensor Networks”, Ad Hoc Netw., 9(3), pp. 468–477, 2011.
[6] C. Barrado, R. Messeguer, J. Lopez, E. Pastor, E. Santamaria and P.
Royo, “Wildfire Monitoring Using a Mixed Air-Ground Mobile
Network”, IEEE Perv. Comp., 9(4), pp. 24–32, 2010.
[7] E. P. 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”, Proc. International Congress on Ultra
Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems (ICUMT), IEEE,
Moscow, Russia, pp. 309–314, 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 Transac. on Aeros. & Elect. Syst., 47(1), pp. 109–
117, 2011.
[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”, J. of Intell. &
Robot. Syst., 61 (1–4), pp. 563–585, 2011.
[10] H. Xiang and L. Tian, “Development of a Low-Cost Agricultural
Remote Sensing System Based on an Autonomous Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV)”, Biosyst. Engg., 108(2), pp. 174–190, 2011.
[11] E.Semsch, M. Jakob, D. Pavlicek and M. Pechoucek, “Autonomous
UAV Surveillance in Complex Urban Environments”, Proc. Intern.
Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Tech.,
IEEE, Milan, Italy, pp. 82–85, 2009.
[12] O. K. Sahingoz, (2014), “Networking Models in Flying Ad-Hoc
Networks (FANETs): Concepts and Challenges”, J. of Intell. & Robo.
Syst., 74(1-2), pp. 513-527, 2014.
[13] M. B. Yassein and N. Alhuda, “Flying Ad-Hoc Networks: Routing
Protocols, Mobility Models, Issues”, Inter. J. of Advan. Comp. Sci.
and Appl., 7(6), pp. 162-168, 2016.
[14] M. T. Hyland, “Performance Evaluation of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols
in a Swarm of Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles”, PhD Thesis,
Air Force Institute of Technology, USA, 2007.
[15] D. L. Gu, G. Pei, H. Ly, M. Gerla, B. Zhang and X. Hong, “UAV
Aided Intelligent Routing for Ad-hoc Wireless Network in Single-
Area Theatre”, Proc. Wireless Communications and Networking
Conference-WCNC, IEEE, Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 1220-1225, 2000.
[16] Md. Hasan, Md. Hossain and Md. Atiquzzaman, “On the Routing in
Flying Ad Hoc Networks”, Proc. Federated Conference on Computer
Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), IEEE, Lodz, Poland, pp.
1-9, 2015.
[17] D. B. Johnson, “Routing in Ad Hoc Networks of Mobile Hosts”,
Proc. Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications,
IEEE, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, pp. 158-163, 1994.
[18] K. Gorantala, “Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks”, Master Thesis,
Umea University, Sweden, 2006.
[19] K. Tan, D. Wu, A. Chan and P. Mohapatra, “Comparing Simulation
Tools and Experimental Testbeds for Wireless Mesh Networks”,
Proc. International Symposium on World of Wireless Mobile and
Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM), IEEE, Montrreal, QC, Canada,
pp. 1–9, 2010.
[20] T. X. Brown, S. Doshi, S. Jadhav and J. Himmelstein, “Test Bed for a
Wireless Network on Small UAVS”, Proc. AIAA 3rd Unmanned
Unlimited Technical Conference, Chicago, pp. 20–23, 2004.
[21] I. Bekmezci, E. Şentürk and T. Türker, “Security Issues in Flying Ad-
Hoc Networks (FANETs)”, J. Aeron. & Spac. Tech. 9(2), pp. 13-21,
2016.
302
