J. Basic.Appl.Sci. Res.,8(3)1-8,2018 | ISSN 2090-4304 |
©2018,TextRoadPublication | JournalofBasicandApplied ScientificResearch |
www.textroad.com |
1FacultyofComputer and Information System, Islamic Universityin Madinah, KSA 2Department ofComputer Science,FederalUrdu University ofArts, Science andTechnology, Pakistan
Received: January 2, 2018 Accepted: March 1, 2018
MANETs(Mobile Ad-hoc Networks) applications in various walks oflife in the last two decades have resulted in introduction of its sub technologies such as VANETs (Vehicular Ad-hoc Network). In this paper, we focus on new ad hoc networking technology called FANET (Flying Ad-hoc Network). FANET introduces the ad hoc networking of flying UAVs to allow real time communication between them and control stations. Flying drones can also form FANET to establish real time communication to achieve their mission. FANET will help in handling of the circumstances like crisis, natural disaster, military combat zones, and package delivery. Efficient real-time routing is a major challenge in FANET because of the very high mobility which results in unpredictable dynamic topology. Routing along with medium access control is a major hurdle in their real time implementation. In this paper, we have first have first highlighted major research issues and challenges in FANET. Then we have performed an investigative review of suitability of using existing ad hoc routing protocols for FANETs. Then, we propose five categories of FANET routing protocols: static, reactive, proactive, hybrid and hierarchical. Finally, we present a comparison ofrouting strategiesbased on certain criteria’s. KEYWORDS—MANET,VANET,FANET, Routingprotocols,UAVS,Sensor nodes
A mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) is a mobile network of autonomous wireless devices with no backbone or infrastructure but exhibitsself-configuring characteristics. MANETshave manyapplication areas such as, disaster relief, military communication, urgent business meetings, etc. The main advantage ofMANETs is their portabilityor mobility. The wide spread applications of MANETs has enabled sub categories of ad-hoc networking technologies, such as Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (VANETs) and Flying Ad hoc Networks (FANETs). Usually, these networks have high mobilitywith rapid topology changes as compared to a typical MANETs, because in both VANET and FANET, most of the nodes are vehicles and UAVs (Unmanned Ariel Vehicles), respectively. VANETs are the networks in which vehicle to vehicle (V2V) and vehicle to pre-installed infrastructure communication is supported. The main objectives of VANETs are to improve, traffic efficiency and traffic congestion, access to information and news to avoid accidents, and for entertainment purpose while driving. Flying Ad-hoc Network (FANET) is a special type of MANET with support of very high mobility. In FANETs, the nodes are normally Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in Unmanned Ariel Systems (UASs) environment. These networks are aimed to construct self-organizing networks with flying aircrafts in the sky [1]. UAVs are involved in both military and civilian applications. The examples of applications of UAVs are, agricultural aviation governing [28], surveillance, patrolling the border area, traffic management, pipe-line monitoring, seismic events, volcano monitoring [4], environmental monitoring, etc. Single UAVs frameworks have been utilized for quite a long time. Although single UAV systems are very often in use, but adding multiple UAVs is avery fruitfulidea due to its advantages over singleUAV system. Therefore, these types of systems called multi-UAVs system. In single UAV architectures, the UAVs are connected to either base station located in the ground or connected with a satellite station for communication in star topology manners. In contrast to single UAV system, multi-UAVs systems have more than one UAV, therefore, multi-UAV can work in multi-hop scenario, and there is no need of all theUAVs to connect directlyto the earth station or satellite station.
Besides this, certain advantages and challenges are associated withMulti-UAVs systems. Some of the advantages over single UAV system aregiven below:
Economical: The maintenance and installation cost of large UAVs, is much higher than that of a small UAV (used in single UAV system) [1].
Scalability: The coverage area of single UAV system is small as compared to multi-UAVs, hence, coverage rate is low [2] while, multi-UAVssystemshave the abilityto adapt to asituation easily.
Stability: One of the major drawbacks of single UAV system is the single point of failure i.e. if a UAV fails to complete its task then the task will not be completed until another UAV is sent. While in multi-UAVs if one UAV fails then the task can be
CorrespondingAuthor:Adnan Nadeem, Faculty of Computer and Information System, Islamic University in Madinah, KSA. & Department ofComputerScience, FederalUrdu University of Arts,Science andTechnology, Pakistan. E-mail: adnan.nadeem@iu.edu.sa
doneother UAVs throughdifferent routes.
Timewise efficient: It is obviousthat as compare to one UAV, multiple UAVs work faster to complete atask[3].
Sustainability: MultiUAV systems are more sustainable than singleUAV systems.
Somechallenges are also associated withMultiUAV systemswhich aregiven below:
Cost of the equipment: The cost of the complex hardware used for communication with either the ground station or satellite station is veryexpensive.
Reliability: The reliability of the communication is a big concern in multi-UAV system due to their high mobility. Very high mobilityin multi-UAV system causes the communication links to make-and-break rapidly. Therefore, it will affect the reliability of thedata.
Coverage Area: Coverage area is the transmission range of a UAV (in meter unit) in which it can remain connected with the ground station.
To cope all these challenges, the introduction of ad-hoc network is the alternate solution. This ad-hoc network is called FANET. FANEThasthecapabilityto solve thisproblemof communication between UAVs.
Multi UAV systems may use star topology to connect to the base station. Some of the nodes (UAVs) correspond with base station, which is situated somewhere at ground, and other nodes can correspond with space station which may be a satellite. UAV-to-UAV communication using the infrastructure has some inherited design problem. UAVs must be outfitted with costly and entangled equipment to correspond with ground and satellite stations. Reliability of the communication in this highly dynamic environmentalis areal challenge.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II, presents the major research issues and challenges of FANET. We presents our review and classification of FANET routing protocol in Section III. In section IV, we present a comparative study. Finally, in section Vwe presents our conclusion andhighlight future work.
Considering few similarities between FANET, MANET and VANET;FANETinherits some of the issues and challenges from MANET and VANET. However, due to additional characteristics, such as, very high speed of UAVs in FANET, the routing protocols require major review and investigation. So, the data routing between UAVs undergoes a serious challenge. The routing communications protocol must be able to update routing table or cache dynamically according to modification in the topology. Previous protocol does not provide a reliable communication. So, there is a need of new communication protocol to provide a flexible and reliable communication.
There are also various issues related to transmission like, securityoverheads, loss of data packets, and use of energy. To some extent, a FANET is not quite the same as customary MANETs and VANETs; but the main idea is the same: having dynamic nodes in an ad hoc manner. Consequently, in aFANET, a few difficulties are substantial as in aVANET while confronting with extra difficulties. Many inquiries have been performed to build the productivity of system with flying nodes, there are as yet numerousunsolved issues, which ought to be investigated.
In a FANET, routing of data between UAVs is a serious challenge, which is not same as the MANETs with low portability mobility conditions. As indicated by topology changes, routing tables must be updated dynamically. Most of existing routing algorithms’ metric calculations are neglected in FANET to give a dependable correspondence between UAVs. Reliability of routes is also a real challenge due to the veryhigh mobilityin FANET. Authors in [22] have suggested reliable routing protocol, however suitabilityof such routing techniques in FANET is required. Along these lines, there is aneed ofnew research direction
J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res.,8(3)1-8, 2018
to calculate routing metrics and develop efficient routing algorithms and network models for developing an adaptable and responsivead hoc model.
In alarge scale mission territoryand multi-UAV operations, participation and coordination between UAVs areone of the most important factors to increase the efficiency of a FANET. In such cases, each UAV needs to change its pathway, and new ones ought to be re-computed progressively. Accordingly, new methods/algorithms are required to arrange the FANET nodes for organizing the clusters ofUAVs.
C. QualityofService(QoS):
A FANET can be utilized for transporting various types of goods to the customer residences such as the deliverydrones from Amazons. They incorporate GPS maps, streaming video/voice, images, straightforward instant messages etc. Provision of certain qualities to service [23] parameter such as delay, bandwidth and packet loss are essential for FANET applications. Characterizing an exhaustive system for QoS-empowered middleware is a serious challenge that ought to be overcome because of the exceedingly mobile and dynamic structure of FANET. Misbehaviors [24] of nodes in FANET could also affect the quality ofservices in their operations.
Coordination between UAVs and manned aircrafts: It is an inescapable fact that, later on with increased number ofUAVs, the flights ofUAVs must be coordinated with the manned aircraft. Similarly, in a military aspect, destruction of enemy aircraft may be achieved by utilizing a FANET or these UAVs can be utilized as electronic jammers. Furthermore, these UAVs can be used as surveillance in foe zones.
III. CLASSIFICATIONOFFANETROUTINGSTRATEGIES
In this section, we first review some major research that leads to the concepts of FANET. Then, we present classification of FANET routing protocols.
Remote (wireless) correspondence ability, available for small and mid-sized, less expensive UAVs, are currently provided commercially. Some of the UAVs are modified and are programmed, load with expensive equipment like cameras, storage, sensors andprocessors.They show ahigh level of stabilityin air. Some are equipped with just essential controlunits [6].
The engineering of an ordinary UAV having systems like, control, monitoring, data processing and landing. The inner system gives an extensive variety and capabilities, from routing to performing information exchange to ground stations. The UAV market is yet developing, and UAVs are being utilized as part of new activities and in taking care of new issues each day. Numerousorganization are concerned with creating low cost UAV systemsof related services [18].
Since FANETs nodes are mobile and ad hoc in nature, they imposes difficulties on the protocols used to help their wireless correspondence. In the UAVs communication system, the behavior and speed of UAVs are considered as advantageous. There are additionally advantageswhen UAVs utilize wireless network system. Someare asunder:
Becauseof line-of-sight propagation,UAVsprovideon demand, excellent qualityofunguided communication.
UAVs can be distinguishing, or detecting the information nodes everywhere throughout the wireless network system
which arepowerfullyanddynamicallyplaced in the network system.
UAVs can refresh their routes to improvethe better execution ofwireless system structure.
UAVs havecapabilityto carryand forward largeamountofdata.
The main purpose of routing protocols is to find appropriate path for data transmission. There are wide range of protocols for different applications in wireless networks, like pre-computed routing protocols, dynamic source routing protocols, on demand routing protocols, flooding, cluster based routing protocols. FANET and VANET are the sub-set of MANET networks [2]. FANETprotocols aredividedinto the following categories.
StaticProtocols Proactive Protocols Reactive Protocols HybridProtocols
A routing table of static routing protocol must be computed and loaded before the operation of UAV nodes and cannot be change until the operation ends. Everynode communicates with other nodes (UAVs)or with station on the ground, and stores its own information [10]. It is necessaryto wait until mission endsin caseof failure of updating the table that iswhythese protocols arenot fault tolerant.
Load Carry and Delivery Routing (LCDR): Load Carry and DeliveryRouting (LCDR) is the first routing protocolin FANET. UAV carry data from a ground node, and it may be a video or image, fly and carry it through to the destination ground node which can be aground controlstation or militaryteam.
Data Centric Routing (DCR):Data Centric Routing (DCR) is arouting protocol in FANET in which the receiving node, either a ground node or a UAV, scatters queries with a specific end goal to gather specific information from a particular zone. Data aggregation algorithm may use for energy efficient data dissemination. This model involves minimum assistance, when small numbers ofUAVsareon the path.DCR allow three scopesin decoupling.
Spacedecoupling:communication nodes can be anywhere.
Timedecoupling: Subscriber’snodetransmitteddata instantlyor maybe transmitted later.
Flow decoupling: Delivery can beaccomplished constantly.
Figure2. RoutingProtocolsinFANET
Proactive routingprotocols manage all the tables of specific area and also gather routing information in a network. In FANET, there are different driven protocols which are not similar to each other. Nodes updates routing tables according to the change in topology. The routing protocol carries the latest information of nodes that is why there is no need to wait and select the path between sender and receiver. When the bandwidth is not used effectively (a lot of traffic between nodes) then this will not be recommended for large communication networks. Other than that the protocol seems to be slow when topology is changed, or failure occurs.
Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV): In Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) routing protocol, every node behaves like a router. It is a proactive routing protocol with table driven approach, where every node can maintain its routing table and contains sequence number for each node. There updating mechanism works when network topology changes. For dynamic networks this protocol is not suitable because of the rapid changes in topology and does not support multipath routing.
J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res.,8(3)1-8, 2018
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR): In OLSR routing protocol use two types of messages for network that are “hello” and “topology control message”. In the communication range “hello” message is use for finding the neighbor nodes to generate neighbor node list for each node and broadcasted to one hop neighbor [9]. Whereas “topology control message” is used in the network to maintain the topologyinformation.Each noderefreshes or recalculates its routing table because these messages periodically refresh the topology information. There is large amount of overheads in this protocols because of its periodic flooding nature. Multi pointrelay(MPR)is used for reducing these overheads [10].
In Reactive routing protocols, unless there is communication between the two nodes, there is no need to figure out a route between them; that is the reason Reactive routing protocols are the also called on demand routing protocols. This mechanism reduces the overhead problem of Proactive Routing Protocols. The utilization of bandwidth in (RRP) is good as there is no periodicmessaging.
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR): It is areactive protocol anddesigned for wireless mesh network. Sender determined the route fromsource to destination node. Sender node sends request to its neighbor nodes, there maybe several route request messages in the network. Sender node send a unique request id to avoid the mixing of the sender node. Every node of the network must be related with route caches in which every one of the routes are available. The principle issue in this is to keep up and refresh the route caches.
Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV): AODV has the same on demand functions like DSR and the difference is maintaining the routing table [4], [10]. Every node in DSR can store different entries in the table for every destination and establish the path for data packet transfer from source to destination. Whereas in AODV it holds only one entry for each destination and stores next hop information to each data communication. AODV routing protocol consists of three phases: routing discovery, transmission of packet, and route maintenance. AODV routing messages type are route request, route reply, and route error.
Hybrid Routing Protocols (HRP) are used to overcome the limitations of proactive and reactive routing protocols as reactive protocols require more time to find routes and proactive protocols have control messages overhead. In Hybrid routing a network is divided into different regions, proactive protocol is used for intra region routing whereas reactive protocol is used for inter region routing.
Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP): ZRP works on the concept of zones. Each node has an alternate zone and zones are separated by predefined range called R. Where the neighboring nodes meet along the range lines. Proactive strategy is used for routing inside the zone and is called intra zone [10]. Information sends right away, when source and destination nodes are in the same zone.Reactive routing techniques areused when information is needed to besentoutside the zone.
Temporarily Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA): TORAis ascalable, efficient and adaptive algorithm. It finds variousroutes among source and destination. Most likely, TORA is a complicated protocol and when any network system connect down the control messages propagates the purpose of failure. TORA works well on larger networks but has higher overhead for smaller networks.
Hierarchical routing is the routing which is mainly based on cluster based topology. One of the major issue in hierarchical routingis the formation of the cluster. Two clusteringformation algorithms arediscussedhere:
Mobility prediction clustering (MPA): A cluster formation algorithm is proposed for FANET in [19] namely called Mobility prediction clustering. Due to high mobility scenario in FANET, the formation of clusters has rapidlyupdates, and this algorithm address this problem by predicting the updates regarding network topology. It forecast the structure of mobility of UAVs by using structure prediction algorithm [20] and link expiration time mobilitymodel. It selects the UAV with highest weighted sum value ofthese models as cluster head(CH). Theresult showed that this CH selection scheme increasesthe clusters stability.
Clustering Algorithm: A clustering formation algorithm for UAV networking is proposed in [21]. In first, the cluster is constructed on ground for multi-UAV system and then updatedduring the flying operation. Then the clusteringplan is calculated for selection of the CHs according to the geographical information. Once the UAVs deployed, then cluster structure is adjusted according to the mission information. Results showed that this algorithm can be used to increase the stability and guarantee the abilityofdynamic networking.
As specified before, there exist four essential routing protocols for FANET. In this segment, we fundamentally break down and look at these essential FANET protocols. Table 1 introduces the relative study among these four FANET routing protocols which are static, proactive, reactive, and hybrid protocols. We clarify each of the examination criteria with more subtle elements in this area.
Table:1 ComparisonsamongtheBasicRoutingProtocolsinFANET
TypesofProtocols | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Criteria | StaticProtocols | ProactiveProtocols | ReactiveProtocols | HybridProtocols |
MainIdea | Static Table | TableDriven Protocol | Ondemand protocol | Combination of Proactive and Reactive protocols |
Complexity | Less | Moderate | Average | Average |
Route | Route is Static | Route is Dynamic | Routeis Dynamic | Routeis Dynamic |
TopologySize | Small | Small | Large | Small and large |
MemorySize | extensive | extensive | Least memory space | Medium memory space |
FaultTolerant | Missing | Missing | Missing | Mostlypresent |
BandwidthUtilization | Best possible | Least possible | Best possible | Moderate |
ConvergenceTime | Quicker | Slower | Mostly fast | Medium |
SignalingOverhead | Missing | Existing | Existing | Existing |
CommunicationLatency | Less | Less | High | High |
MissionFailureRate | High | Low | Low | Very low |
Popularity | Least popularity | Medium popularity | Medium popularity | Best popularity |
Operation | Fixed mission | Dynamic mission | Dynamic mission | Dynamic mission |
In Static protocol, the primary thought is that the routing information is unchangeable or fixed for a specific mission and is stacked into the UAV before the mission. Whereas, Proactive protocol holds the present route data into the table. Reactive protocolison request/on demandprotocol, at thepointwhen the source requests destination route, it computes theroute.
Complexity is comparatively low in static protocol, when destination is fixed. If there should be an occurrence of topology change, route finding turns out to bemore complicate in proactive convention.
If there should be an occurrence of static protocol, route is settled all through the mission. Routes are dynamic for every other protocol.
Best utilization for fixed topology mission is Static protocol. Subsequently, if the size of the topology measures extensive, then there is a possibility of change in topology. Thus, it is better to use Static protocol for small network systems. Proactive protocol is a table-driven protocol. If the event that the quantity of UAVs expands, their comparing routing table sections additionally increments. In this manner, proactive protocol is suitable for network with small number of nodes. For hybrid and intra zone routing mostlyfixed and small network size isbetter.
Before the mission starts, the entire information about routing is transferred into the UAV in Static protocol. Accordingly, this process requires large memory space. In the event that the number of nodes increases, the table size becomes bigger. In this manner, large memory space needed in Proactive protocol. Reactive protocols are mostly source driven protocol hence, when source requires to discover a route, the route discovery mechanism would be actuated, hence, requiring less memory. Position-basedprotocolstores the directionsof eachUAV,along theselines requiring large memoryspace.
Mission route or topology change in FANETs is a fundamental issue. Static protocol doesn’t support this situation. In this way, fault tolerance is missing in this convention. Other routing mechanisms have some fault tolerance mechanism for finding alternate routes.
Static protocols are utilized as a part of small network system where topologyis fixed, so there is almost no use ofbandwidth utilization. Hello messages are sent periodically by Proactive protocols in the system. Thus, this protocol requires more information exchange or require more bandwidth. Less transmission capacityis required for Reactive protocols because they are source driven. For hybridprotocols, transmission capacityuseis medium.
Destination is predefined in the static protocol. When a route is required, discovery time is minimum. After every change in the topology, proactive protocol looks through the destination node, resulting in bigger convergence time. Reactive protocol discovers the route quick, however this protocol takes additional time when topology changes. Whereas Hybrid protocols need average time to converge the network.
I. Signalingoverhead There are signaling overheads in Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid protocols; however, the Static protocols have no overhead. For example, in proactive protocol overhead of hello messages, whereas, route request and route reply message in Reactive and
J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res.,8(3)1-8, 2018
hybridprotocols.
Staticprotocols are easy to understand;however, theyare notblame tolerant.That is the reason, they are onlyusedin static small networks. Other protocolsare easyto configure and can handle mobile and dynamicnetworks, therefore, theyare significantlywell known.
Since the path distance in between the UAVs is less and also have low correspondence in the static and proactive protocols, there is low communication latency. The distance between theUAV to UAV andground station to UAV ishigher in reactive and hybrid protocols. Due to this Reactive and hybrid protocols holds much higher latency as compare to static and proactive protocol. Also reactiveprotocolsneed time for routediscovery, therefore, thecommunication latencyincreases.
Static protocols are utilized as a part of missions where mission objective and topology are settled or fixed. Already, most of the protocols were utilized as a part of military operations. However, utilization of UAVs has expanded day by day. Therefore, numerous civilian operations are currently directed by multi-UAVs frameworks. Therefore, everyprotocol is being modified to handle mobility and adhocnature, so theseprotocols can also utilize in civilian and military operations.
UAVs have a promising part in a substantial operation zone with complex missions. UAVs require participation with each other and need a fast and simple data communication framework.Multi UAV framework reduces the operation achievement time and enhance the quality of the framework for airborne operations when contrasted with a single UAV framework. To apply organizing in non-Line of Sight (LOS), urban, forceful, and loud condition, multi-UAV framework is extremely viable and precise. Correspondence is a critical issues for multi-UAV frameworks. In this research paper, specially appointed systems among the UAVs, i.e. FANETs are studied alongside their main difficulties in contrast to the conventional ad hoc systems. The current steering conventions for FANETs are grouped into five noteworthy classifications which are then basically broke down and analyzed in view of different execution criteria. At last, we have listed a few open research issues concerned with FANET, which allow the research communityto focuson.
[1] Tareque, Md Hasan, Md Shohrab Hossain, and Mohammed Atiquzzaman. "On the routing in flying ad hoc networks." In Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 2015 Federated Conference on,pp. 1-9. IEEE,2015.
[2] Kaur, Simarjot, and Meenu Talwar. "Routing Strategies in Flying Ad-Hoc Networks." Journal of Network Communications and Emerging Technologies (JNCET) www. jncet. org 6,no. 3 (2016).
[3] Bujari, Armir, Carlos T. Calafate, Juan-Carlos Cano, Pietro Manzoni, Claudio Enrico Palazzi, andDaniele Ronzani. "Flying ad-hoc network application scenarios and mobility models." International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks13, no.10 (2017):1550147717738192.
[4] Maistrenko, Vasily A., Leonov V. Alexey, and Volkov A. Danil. "Experimental estimate of using the ant colony optimization algorithm to solve the routing problem in FANET." In Control and Communications (SIBCON), 2016 International Siberian Conference on,pp.1-10.IEEE,2016.
[5] Bilal, Rabia, andBilalMuhammadKhan. "Analysis ofMobilityModels andRoutingSchemes for FlyingAd-Hoc Networks (FANETS)."International Journalof Applied Engineering Research 12,no. 12 (2017): 3263-3269.
[6] Farhan Mohammed, Imad Jawhar, Nader Mohamed, Idries, “Towards Trusted and Efficient UAV-Based Communication”, 2nd International Conference on Big Data Security on Cloud, IEEE International Conference on High Performance and Smart Computing, IEEEInternationalConference on IntelligentData andSecurity, 2016 IEEE
[7] Stefano Rosati, Karol Kru˙zelecki, Gr´egoire Heitz, Dario Floreano,Bixio Rimoldi, “Dynamic Routing for Flying Ad Hoc Networks,Transactionson Vehicular Technology, 2015 IEEE
[8] Kuldeep Singh,Anil Kumar Verma, “Applying OLSR Routing in FANETs”, International Conference on Advanced Communication Control andComputing Technologies,2014 IEEE
[9] Danil S. Vasiliev, Albert Abilov, Vladimir V. Khvorenkov, “Peer Selection Algorithm In Flying Ad hoc Networks”, InternationalSiberian Conference on Control and Communications,2016.
[10] Krishan Yadav, Amit Nain, SunilMaakar, BahalBhiwani, “RoutingProtocols in FANET: Survey”, NationalConference on Innovative Trendsin Computer ScienceEngineering, April4,2015
[11] Anuradha Chauhan, Ms. Renu Singla, “A Detail Review on Unmanned Aeronautical Ad-hoc Networks”, International JournalofScience, Engineering andTechnologyResearch (IJSETR)Volume5, Issue 5,May2016.
[12] Sameer Qazi, Arsalan Alvi, AdilMazhar Qureshi, BilalA. Khawaja,MuhammadMustaqim, “An Architecture for RealTime Monitoring AerialAdhocNetwork”,13thInternationalConference on Frontiersof Information Technology,2015
[13] AlirezaTalischi, “AReview: QoS andPDR atFlyingAd-HocNetworks(FANETs)RoutingProtocols”,
[14] Dr S.Vijayalakshmi, M.Sweatha, “A Survey on History and Types of Manet” International Journal of Emerging Trends in Scienceand Technology,2016.
[15] Ozgur Koray Sahingoz, “Networking Models in Flying Ad-Hoc Networks (FANETs): Concepts and Challenges”, Springer Science+Business MediaDordrecht 2013.
[16] Muhammad Asghar Khan, Raees Muhammad Asif, Syyed Muhammad Riaz uddin, Alif Shah, “ Review of Communication Protocols for FANETs (Flying Ad-Hoc Networks)”, International Conference on Engineering and Emerging echnologies (ICEET-2015)March26-27,2015;Superior UniversityLahorePakistan.
[17] Smriti Iyer, “Review of Flying Ad-hoc Networks (FANETs)”, International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing andCommunication, Volume: 4 Issue: 3
[18] Volodymyr Kharchenko, DmitryPrusov, “ANALYSISOFUNMANNEDAIRCRAFTSYSTEMSAPPLICATIONINTHE CIVILFIELD”, 2012 Volume27(3):335–343.
[19] Zang, Chunhua, and Shouhong Zang. "Mobility prediction clustering algorithm for UAV networking." In GLOBECOM Workshops (GC Wkshps), 2011 IEEE,pp.1158-1161. IEEE,2011.
[20] Konstantopoulos, Charalampos, Damianos Gavalas, andGrammatiPantziou. "A mobility aware techniquefor clustering on mobile ad-hocnetworks."Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4308 (2006):397.
[21] Liu, Kesheng, Jun Zhang, and Tao Zhang. "The clustering algorithm of UAV networking in near-space." In Antennas, Propagation and EM Theory, 2008. ISAPE 2008. 8th International Symposium on,pp.1550-1553. IEEE, 2008.
[22] NMObaidKhan, Adnan Nadeem, Kamran Ahsan, “RPRP: RoutingProtocol to ensure the reliabilityin health care system”, publishedin textroadJournal ofBasic andAppliedScientific ResearchVol.4,No.1,pp17-25,2014.
[23] Abdul Salam, Adnan Nadeem, Kamran Ahsan, Muhammad Sarim, “A Novel QoS Algorithm for Health Care Applications of Body Area Sensor Networks“,published in textroad Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research Vol.4, No.1, pp 169-178, 2014.
[24] S Azfar, A Nadeem, K Ahsan, M Sarim, “Impact Analysis and a Detection Method for Misbehaving Nodes in Mobile Ad-hocNetworks”, published in textroadJournalofBasic andAppliedScientific ResearchVol.4, No.8, pp15-28,2014