Performance Evaluation of Multi-UAV Network Applied to Scanning Rocket Impact Area †
<p>Impact area of a rocket launched from CLBI (Barreira do Inferno Launch Center).</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Simple example of a FANET (Flying ad hoc network).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Flight formation for spiral scanning.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Area scanning strategies for the formation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). (<b>a</b>) Spiral pattern; (<b>b</b>) Back and forth pattern.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Area decomposed into four subareas by using the back-and-forth pattern.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Architecture for the Multi-UAV system.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Hardware specification of the proposed multi-UAV system. (<b>a</b>) XBee module embedded in UAV Phantom 3 Standard; (<b>b</b>) XBee module connected to the power bank; (<b>c</b>) BS equipped with a XBee module.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Sequence of steps of the proposed algorithm.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Flow of CntMs to the BS in a FANET: (<b>a</b>) UAV-1 completed the mission without detecting boats; (<b>b</b>) the imaging system located a boat, while informing the BS and preparing a DM.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Message flow for transmitting an image.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>ZigBee devices in a scenario FANET test with mesh configuration.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Test site and position of UAVs.</p> "> Figure 13
<p>ZigBee devices in a scenario 1 with mesh configuration.</p> "> Figure 14
<p>ZigBee devices in configuration scenario 2. (<b>a</b>) ZigBee devices in P2P configuration scenario; (<b>b</b>) ZigBee devices in a scenario without failure; (<b>c</b>) ZigBee devices in a scenario with failure.</p> "> Figure 15
<p>Analysis of the best position of XBee antenna by simulation using 4nec2 software.</p> "> Figure 16
<p>Simulation results of the operating frequency range of XBee antenna.</p> "> Figure 17
<p>Simulated behavior of the power received by the XBee transceiver.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Based on the analysis of the various possible configurations of the communication network and the specific features to perform the area scan over the sea, an appropriate architecture is proposed for this particular application based on devices that support IEEE 802.15.4 standard and ZigBee communication protocol. This solution is capable of sending telemetry data and images between the UAVs using a FANET;
- A communication protocol is proposed for a FANET operating in the maritime area, being capable of transmitting telemetry images and data. Due to the particularities of the scenario and involved application, XBee Pro 900HP S3B sensors were adopted. Besides, the system meets the following requirements:
- The communication protocol was validated by assessing different scenarios and controlled environments. The first scenario validates the wireless sensor network (WSN) throughput on a mesh network. The purpose is to check whether ZigBee sensors meet image system requirements to send messages according to the time required to sweep the area. The second scenario assesses the fault tolerance capacity of the ad hoc network to reorganize itself into a multi-UAV system. If an intermediate node fails, the network reconfigures itself by finding new routes in the FANET in all test conditions;
- Simulation tests were performed to define a position for which the aircraft structure influences as little as possible the electromagnetic propagation of the antenna used by XBee sensors. The omnidirectional aspect of the antenna is then maintained and the surrounding UAVs will have nearly the same signal strength if the distances are equal;
- A channel based on Rice propagation model using line-of-sight (LOS) was analyzed by simulation employing a synthetic signal associated with XBee devices to define how farther one aircraft can stay away from another while maintaining minimum QoS, that is, to ensure that the signal strength at reception has a power exceeding −100 dBm;
- Tests were performed in a controlled environment to transmit images between the multi-UAV network and the base station, where the image is split into multiple packets. To simulate the tests, XBee sensors embedded in the UAV model DJI Phantom 3 are employed.
2. Communication Networks for UAVs
2.1. FANET
2.1.1. Characteristics of FANET
2.1.2. Main Applications
2.1.3. Routing Strategy
2.2. Parameters for Measuring the Performance and Quality of the Data Transmission Network
2.2.1. Delay
2.2.2. Throughput
2.2.3. Packet Loss
2.2.4. Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI)
3. Strategies for Scanning the Impact Area
3.1. Scanning Strategy Using Multi-UAV System without Area Decomposition
3.2. Scanning Strategy Using Multi-UAV System with Area Decomposition
3.3. Comparative Analyses among Scanning Strategies Using Multi-UAV Systems
4. Proposed System
4.1. Communication Subsystem
4.1.1. Hardware Specification
4.1.2. XBee Pro 900HP S3B Modules
4.2. Computer Vision Subsystem
4.3. Software Architecture
- Type 1: control messages (CtrM), which are periodically transmitted from the network to the BS containing data on telemetry and the swept area;
- Type 2: data messages (DM), which are scanned transmitted from a UAV to the BS when a boat is found, containing the image of the target;
- Type 3: confirmation messages (CnfM), which correspond to the response sent from the BS to a UAV to confirm the receipt of a data message.
4.3.1. Control Messages
- Identification: unique identifier of the message within a sequence. The packet starts with zero value, while the following ones are incremented by one unit until the mission is finished;
- Message Type: it indicates the packet type, for example, type 1 in this case;
- Source Node Address: identifier of the node that generated the message;
- Destination Node Address: identifier of the node to which the message is addressed;
- Packet Number: unique identifier of a packet sequence. All packets that belong to a same sequence assume a constant value for this field. This field is used in the reassembly process. A node must never assign the same number to a different sequence;
- Time: it forms the date and time of the packet origin using Unix timestamp format;
- Current Location: it contains the geographic coordinates of the source node;
- Number of targets found: this parameter is initialized with zero, being incremented by one unit when a boat is detected;
- Location of found targets: it contains the geographic coordinates of possible targets.
4.3.2. Data Messages
- Identification: unique identifier of the message within a sequence. The initial packet starts with zero value, while the following ones are incremented by one unit until the value of the last packet is reached;
- Message type: it indicates the packet type, that is, type 2 in this case;
- Number of packets: it indicates the number of packets that must be sent;
- Source Node Address: identifier of the node that found the boat and generated the message;
- Packet Number: unique identifier of packet sequence, whose value is equal to the field of the CtrM header that contains the boat location. All packets that belong to a same sequence assume a constant value for this field. This field is used in the reassembly process, being associated with the source node address to identify the target location;
- Data: it contains the fragmented image of the target.
4.3.3. Confirmation Messages
- Identification: identifier of the last received packet;
- Message Type: it indicates the type of the packet, that is, type 3 in this case;
- Destination Node Address: identifier of the node that localized the boat;
4.3.4. Operation of the Multi-UAV System
5. Description of the Scenarios for FANET Test
5.1. Scenario 1—Baud Rate of 115,200 bps
5.2. Scenario 2—Baud Rates of 38,800 bps and 115,200 bps
6. Results
6.1. Antenna Modeling and Characterization
6.2. Simulation of the Maximum Range between UAVs
6.3. Experimental Results
6.3.1. Scenario 1
6.3.2. Scenario 2
- first case: the peer-to-peer transmission between ED and BS was performed, shown in Figure 14a. There was no packet hop through a multi-hop network. The distance between ED and BS nodes was less than 800 m.
- second case: the transmission was carried out with a hop through a hub. The position of the nodes was the same as that in scenario 1, shown in Figure 13.
6.4. Analysis and Comparison of Results
7. Conclusions and Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wallace, L.; Lucieer, A.; Watson, C.; Turner, D. Development of a UAV-LiDAR system with application to forest inventory. Remote Sens. 2012, 4, 1519–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trasviña-Moreno, C.A.; Blasco, R.; Marco, Á.; Casas, R.; Trasviña-Castro, A. Unmanned aerial vehicle based wireless sensor network for marine-coastal environment monitoring. Sensors 2017, 17, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernández-Vega, J.I.; Varela, E.R.; Romero, N.H.; Hernández-Santos, C.; Cuevas, J.L.S.; Gorham, D.G.P. Internet of Things (IoT) for Monitoring Air Pollutants with an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in a Smart City. In Smart Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 108–120. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, P.; Boukerche, A.; Tao, Y. Theoretical Analysis of the Area Coverage in a UAV-based Wireless Sensor Network. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), Ottawa, ON, Canada, 5–7 June 2017; pp. 117–120. [Google Scholar]
- Papatheodorou, S.; Tzes, A.; Stergiopoulos, Y. Collaborative visual area coverage. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2017, 92, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mansouri, S.S.; Kanellakis, C.; Fresk, E.; Kominiak, D.; Nikolakopoulos, G. Cooperative coverage path planning for visual inspection. Control Eng. Pract. 2018, 74, 118–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, T.; Seok, J.; Lee, I.; Han, J. Reliable flying IoT networks for UAV disaster rescue operations. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2018, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdelj, M.; Natalizio, E. UAV-assisted disaster management: Applications and open issues. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), Kauai, HI, USA, 15–18 February 2016; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Erdelj, M.; Król, M.; Natalizio, E. Wireless sensor networks and multi-UAV systems for natural disaster management. Comput. Netw. 2017, 124, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, L.; Garlichs, K.; Yamada, S.; Takano, K.; Ji, Y. Mission planning for UAV-based opportunistic disaster recovery networks. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 12–15 January 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Chauhan, A.; Singla, M.R. A detail review on unmanned aeronautical ad-hoc networks. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. Res. 2016, 5, 1351–1360. [Google Scholar]
- Sahingoz, O.K. Networking models in flying ad-hoc networks (FANETs): Concepts and challenges. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2014, 74, 513–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, L.; Jain, R.; Vaszkun, G. Survey of Important Issues in UAV Communication Networks. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2015, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, J.; Han, G. Routing protocols for unmanned aerial vehicles. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2018, 56, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, J.; Zhang, D. TARCS: A Topology Change Aware-Based Routing Protocol Choosing Scheme of FANETs. Electronics 2019, 8, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marconato, E.A.; Maxa, J.A.; Pigatto, D.F.; Pinto, A.S.; Larrieu, N.; Branco, K.R.C. IEEE 802.11 n vs. IEEE 802.15. 4: A study on Communication QoS to provide Safe FANETs. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks Workshop (DSN-W), Toulouse, France, 28 June–1 July 2016; pp. 184–191. [Google Scholar]
- Jawhar, I.; Mohamed, N.; Al-Jaroodi, J.; Agrawal, D.P.; Zhang, S. Communication and networking of UAV-based systems: Classification and associated architectures. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2017, 84, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popescu, D.; Dragana, C.; Stoican, F.; Ichim, L.; Stamatescu, G. A collaborative UAV-WSN network for monitoring large areas. Sensors 2018, 18, 4202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ordoukhanian, E.; Madni, A.M. Introducing Resilience into Multi-UAV System-of-Systems Network. In Disciplinary Convergence in Systems Engineering Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 27–40. [Google Scholar]
- Santos, C.C.C.; Costa, D.A.L.M.; Junior, V.L.S.; Silva, B.R.F.; Leite, D.L.; Junor, C.E.B.S.; Liberator, B.A.; Nogueira, M.B.; Senna, M.D.; Santiago, G.S.; et al. Scanning Rocket Impact Area with an UAV: First Results. In Proceedings of the 22nd ESA Symposium on European Rocket and Balloon Programmes and Related Research, Tromso, Norway, 7–12 June 2015; Volume 730, p. 221. [Google Scholar]
- Tavares, J.V.; Sousa, R.C.; Segundo, M.T.; Bertelli, G.P.; Silveira, L.F.; Santiago, G.S.; Alsina, P.J.; Santos, A.F.; Dantas, J.D.; Senna, M.D.; et al. An UAV to Scan Rocket Impact Area for Safety Procedures. In Proceedings of the 21st ESA Symposium on European Rocket & Balloon Programmes and Related Research, Thun, Switzerland, 9–13 June 2013; Volume 721, pp. 57–64. [Google Scholar]
- Nasution, T.; Siregar, I.; Yasir, M. UAV telemetry communications using ZigBee protocol. J. Phys. 2017, 941, 012001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Cheng, N.; Lu, N.; Shen, X.S. Multi-UAV-aided networks: Aerial-ground cooperative vehicular networking architecture. IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. 2015, 10, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vale, G.L.S. Raspberry Drone: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Master’s Thesis, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisboa, Portugal, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bacco, M.; Berton, A.; Gotta, A.; Caviglione, L. IEEE 802.15. 4 Air-Ground UAV Communications in Smart Farming Scenarios. IEEE Commun. Lett. 2018, 22, 1910–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braga, J.; Alessandretti, A.; Aguiar, A.P.; Sousa, J. A feedback motion strategy applied to a UAV to work as an autonomous relay node for maritime operations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Miami, FL, USA, 13–16 June 2017; pp. 625–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Factory, U.; Penguin B UAV platform, UAV Factory Platforms and Subsystem, 1 Jaunbridagi, LV-2167 Marupe, Latvia. Personal communication, 2019.
- Mushtaq, Z.; Shairani, L.; Sani, S.S.; Mazhar, A.; Saeed, M.A.; Aftab, N. Innovative Conceptualization of Fly-By-Sensors (FBS) flight control systems using ZigBee Wireless Sensors networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Wireless for Space and Extreme Environments (WiSEE), Orlando, FL, USA, 14–16 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Min, S.; Nam, H. A formation flight control of UAVS using zigbee. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on ubiquitous robots and ambient intelligence (URAI), Xi’an, China, 19–22 August 2016; pp. 163–165. [Google Scholar]
- Sineglazov, V.; Daskal, E. Unmanned aerial vehicle navifation system based on IEEE 802.15.4 standard radiounits. In Proceedings of the IEEE 4th International Conference Actual Problems of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Developments (APUAVD), Kiev, Ukraine, 17–19 October 2017; pp. 241–244. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, W.; Lee, J.; Lee, J.; Kim, K.; Yoo, S.; Park, S.; Kim, H. Ground Control System Based Routing for Reliable and Efficient Multi-Drone Control System. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.; Cho, N.; Lee, K.; Kim, Y. Formation Flight of Multiple UAVs via Onboard Sensor Information Sharing. Sensors 2015, 15, 17397–17419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillen-Perez, A.; Cano, M.D. Flying Ad Hoc Networks: A New Domain for Network Communications. Sensors 2018, 18, 3571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, M.R.; Souza, E.S.; Alsina, P.J.; Francisco, H.C.; Medeiros, A.A.D.; Nogueira, M.B.; de Alburquerque, G.G.L.A.; Dantas, J.B.D. Communication network architecture specification for multi-UAV system applied to scanning rocket impact area first results. In Proceedings of the Latin American Robotics Symposium (LARS) and 2017 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR), Curitiba, Brazil, 8–11 November 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, K.; Verma, A.K. Adaptability of Various Mobility Models for Flying AdHoc Networks—A Review. In Networking Communication and Data Knowledge Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 51–63. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-García, J.; García-Campos, J.M.; Toral, S.; Reina, D.; Barrero, F. An intelligent strategy for tactical movements of UAVs in disaster scenarios. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2016, 12, 8132812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruini, F.; Cangelosi, A.; Zetule, F. Individual and cooperative tasks performed by autonomous MAV teams driven by embodied neural network controllers. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, Atlanta, GA, USA, 14–19 June 2009; pp. 2717–2724. [Google Scholar]
- Balampanis, F.; Maza, I.; Ollero, A. Coastal areas division and coverage with multiple UAVs for remote sensing. Sensors 2017, 17, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zafar, W.; Khan, B.M. A reliable, delay bounded and less complex communication protocol for multicluster FANETs. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2017, 3, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruan, L.; Chen, J.; Guo, Q.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, D. Group Buying-Based Data Transmission in Flying Ad-Hoc Networks: A Coalition Game Approach. Information 2018, 9, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perdana, R.C.; Wibowo, F.W. Quality of Service for XBee in Implementation of Wireless Sensor Network. Res. J. Appl. Sci. 2016, 11, 692–697. [Google Scholar]
- Moridi, M.A.; Kawamura, Y.; Sharifzadeh, M.; Chanda, E.K.; Wagner, M.; Okawa, H. Performance analysis of ZigBee network topologies for underground space monitoring and communication systems. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 71, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coulson, A.J.; Williamson, A.G.; Vaughan, R.G. A statistical basis for lognormal shadowing effects in multipath fading channels. IEEE Trans. Commun. 1998, 46, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Öst, G. Search Path Generation with UAV Applications Using Approximate Convex Decomposition. Master’s Thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Marro, A.A.; Goncalves, L.M.G. A path planning method for multi-uav system. In Proceedings of the atin American Robotics Symposium and Competition, Arequipa, Peru, 21–27 October 2013; pp. 129–135. [Google Scholar]
- XBee-PRO. User Guide - XBee-PRO 900HP/XSC RF Modules S3 and S3B; Digi International: Minnetonka, MN, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- ZigBee Alliance, I.; ZigBee Pro. ZigBee Alliance, Inc, Davis, CA 95616, USA. Personal communication, 2017.
- Silva, B.R.F.; Nogueira, M.B.; Alsina, P.J.; de Albuquerque, G.L.A.; Dantas, J.B.D.; de Medeiros, A.A.D.; Santiago, G.S. Study on detection of boats using satellite imagery for use on unmanned aerial vehicles. In Proceedings of the Latin American Robotics Symposium (LARS) and 2017 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR), Curitiba, Brazil, 8–11 November 2017; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-amri, S.S.; Kalyankar, N.V.; Khamitkar, S.D. Image Segmentation by Using Threshold Techniques. arXiv 2010, arXiv:1005.4020. [Google Scholar]
- Dalal, N.; Triggs, B. Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05), San Diego, CA, USA, 20–25 June 2005; Volume 1, pp. 886–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xctu, D.; Digi XBee-PRO® 900HP. Digi International Inc., Minnetonka, MN 55343, USA. Personal communication, 2017.
- Khuwaja, A.A.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, N.; Alouini, M.; Dobbins, P. A Survey of Channel Modeling for UAV Communications. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2018, 20, 2804–2821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Voors, A. 4nec2—NEC Based Antenna Modeler and Optimizer. Available online: https://www.qsl.net/4nec2 (accessed on 3 July 2019).
- Balanis, C.A. Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Amorim, R.; Nguyen, H.; Mogensen, P.; Kovács, I.Z.; Wigard, J.; Sørensen, T.B. Radio Channel Modeling for UAV Communication Over Cellular Networks. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. 2017, 6, 514–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Characteristics | Without Subdivision of the Area | With Subdivision of the Area |
---|---|---|
Formation | Close nodes as function of the field of view of the camera | Distant nodes as a function of the radio range |
Required time interval for scanning the area | Proportional to the number of the nodes | Proportional to the number of the nodes |
Size of the monitored area | Limited by the radio range of the UAV hub | It can be extended from the UAV out of range through the mesh network |
Type of communication\routing | Star or Mesh, with little design modification | Mesh |
Topology of the network between the UAVs (nodes) | Start or Mesh | Mesh |
Topology of the network between UAVs and base station | Star, need of a hub node to communicate with the base station over the entire area | Mesh, wider range of communication |
Distance between nodes | Short | Long |
Required time interval for interruption in case of node failure | Short | Long |
Reorganization in case of failure node | Low operational cost independent of the scanning method | Medium and high cost when using the back-and forth and spiral method, respectively |
Energy consumption | Low in the case of end devices | Medium/high in routers and coordinators |
Type of node | Star Topology: one or two coordinators, one router end devices required | One or two coordinators and routers required |
Application | Scanning time is the major concern, thus requiring a node with higher range and processing capacity. | Larger scanning areas. The nodes have the same transmission and processing capacity. |
Field | Size (bytes) | |
---|---|---|
ID | Identification | 4 |
TY | Message Type | 1 |
SN | Source Node Address | 2 |
DN | Destination Node Address | 2 |
PN | Packet Number | 4 |
TI | Time | 10 |
LA | Current location | 18 |
QN | Number of targets found | 4 |
LN | Location of targets | 36 |
Field | Size (bytes) | |
---|---|---|
ID | Identification | 4 |
TY | Message Type | 1 |
SN | Source Node Address | 2 |
PQ | Number of Packets | 4 |
DN | Destination Node Address | 2 |
PN | Packet Number | 4 |
DA | Data | 239 |
Field | Size (bytes) | |
---|---|---|
ID | Identification | 4 |
TY | Message Type | 1 |
DN | Address Destination Node | 2 |
Parameter | BS | HUB | ED |
---|---|---|---|
ZigBee Function | Coordinator | Router | End Device. |
Distance from BS | - | 400–600 m | 900–1100 m |
Baud Rate | 115,200 bps | 115,200 bps | 115,200 bps |
Sent Bytes | 128,000 | - | 128,000 |
Sent packets | 500 | - | 500 |
Parameter | BS | HUB | ED |
---|---|---|---|
ZigBee Function | Coordinator | Router | End device |
Distance from BS peer-to-peer | - | - | 700–800 m |
Distance from BS with hop | - | 400–600 m | 900–1100 m |
Baud Rate | 38,800 bps | 115,200 bps | 38,800 bps |
Sent Bytes | - | - | 128,000 |
Sent Packets | - | - | 500 |
Parameter | Value |
---|---|
PTx—trasnmission power | 23 dBm |
GTx—transmission antenna gain | 1.7 dBi |
GRx—receiving antenna gain | 1.7 dBi |
—wavelength | 0.33 m |
—random variable | 6.0 dB |
Received Bytes | Sent Time (seconds) | Local RSSI (dBm) | Remote RSSI (dBm) | Tx (kbps) | Received Packets | Lost Packets | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | 127,925 | 01:07 | −50 | −50 | 15.56 | 499.7 | 0.3 |
Best Result | 128,000 | 01:02 | −48 | −47 | 16.38 | 500 | 0 |
Worst Result | 126,976 | 01:36 | −49 | −54 | 10.56 | 496 | 4 |
mean deviation | 237 | 00:10 | 2.79 | 2.79 | 1.63 | 0.93 | 0.93 |
Parameters | Results |
---|---|
Number of tests | 72 |
Tests without lost packets | 90.28% |
Received bytes | 99.96% |
Average Throughput | 15.56 kbps |
Average time to send image | 67 s |
Received Bytes | Sent Time (seconds) | Local RSSI (dBm) | Remote RSSI (dBm) | Tx (kbps) | Received Packets | Lost Packets | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Peer-to-peer | 127,872 | 01:56 | −49.4 | −51.2 | 8.92 | 499.5 | 0.5 |
Multi-hop | 127,974 | 02:18 | −50.9 | −50.9 | 7.48 | 499.9 | 0.1 |
Multi-hop with failure | 127,770 | 02:23 | −51.2 | −50.8 | 7.13 | 499.1 | 0.9 |
Parameters | Peer-to-Peer | Multi-Hop | Multi-Hop with Failure |
---|---|---|---|
Number of tests | 36 | 36 | 36 |
Tests without lost packets | 58.33% | 94.44% | 16.67% |
Received bytes | 99.90% | 99.98% | 99.82% |
Average Throughput | 8.92 kbps | 7.48 kbps | 7.13 kbps |
Average time to send image | 116 s | 138 s | 143 s |
Scenario | RSSI Average (dBm) | Average Throughout (kbps) | Average Transmission Time (seconds) | Tests without Loss of Packets (%) | Received Packets (%) | Network Reconfiguration after Failure (%) * | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Local | Remote | ||||||
01 | −50.00 | −50.00 | 14.77 | 67 | 90.78 | 99.96 | - |
02 P2P | −49.40 | −51.20 | 8.92 | 116 | 58.33 | 99.90 | - |
02 Multi-hop | −50.88 | −50.92 | 7.48 | 138 | 94.44 | 99.98 | - |
02 Multi-hop with failure | −51.24 | −50.86 | 7.13 | 143 | 16.67 | 99.82 | 100 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Silva, M.R.; Souza, E.S.; Alsina, P.J.; Leite, D.L.; Morais, M.R.; Pereira, D.S.; Nascimento, L.B.P.; Medeiros, A.A.D.; Junior, F.H.C.; Nogueira, M.B.; et al. Performance Evaluation of Multi-UAV Network Applied to Scanning Rocket Impact Area. Sensors 2019, 19, 4895. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19224895
Silva MR, Souza ES, Alsina PJ, Leite DL, Morais MR, Pereira DS, Nascimento LBP, Medeiros AAD, Junior FHC, Nogueira MB, et al. Performance Evaluation of Multi-UAV Network Applied to Scanning Rocket Impact Area. Sensors. 2019; 19(22):4895. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19224895
Chicago/Turabian StyleSilva, Maurício R., Elitelma S. Souza, Pablo J. Alsina, Deyvid L. Leite, Mateus R. Morais, Diego S. Pereira, Luís B. P. Nascimento, Adelardo A. D. Medeiros, Francisco H. Cunha Junior, Marcelo B. Nogueira, and et al. 2019. "Performance Evaluation of Multi-UAV Network Applied to Scanning Rocket Impact Area" Sensors 19, no. 22: 4895. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19224895