Communication Interface Manager for Improving Performance of Heterogeneous UAV Networks

Abstract

Exchanging messages with stable connections in missions composed of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) remains a challenge. The variations in UAV distances from each other, considering their individual trajectories, and the medium dynamic factors are important points to be addressed.In this context, to increase the stability of UAV-to-UAV (U2U) communication with link quality, this paper presents an interface manager (IM) that is capable of improving communication in multi-UAV networks.Given a predefined set of available individual wireless interfaces, the proposed IM dynamically defines the best interface for sending messages based on on-flight conditions sensed and calculated dynamically from the wireless medium. Different simulation scenarios are generated using a complex and realistic experimental setup composed of traditional simulators such as NS-3, Gazebo, and GzUAV. IEEE 802.11n 2.4 GHz and 802.11p 5 GHz interfaces are used for the IM selection. The IM performance is evaluated in terms of metrics from the medium-access-control (MAC) and physical layers, which aim to improve and maintain the connectivity between the UAVs during the mission, and from the application layer, which targets the reliability in the delivery of messages. The obtained results show that compared with the cases where a single interface is used, the proposed IM is able to increase the network throughput and presents the best proportion of transmitted and received packets, reception power (−60 dBm to −75 dBm), and loss (−80 dB to −85 dB), resulting in a more efficient and stable network connections.

Performance Evaluation of Different ToS Using Heterogeneous Communication Interfaces in FANETs

“…It important to note that, for 802.11 communications with up to 100 m between nodes without relays or repeaters in a freespace transmission, the theoretical calculated loss is 80 dB (Geier, 2010;Ribeiro et al, 2021). Observing all graphs presented in Figure 13, with the exception of the IM-2Int experiment for the three-node scenario, all IM combinations obtained loss values up to theoretical one, but with shorter distances (75, 60, and 55 m for three-, five-, and eight-node scenarios, respectively.…”

“…Other approaches include the use of more than one standard (heterogeneous systems), expanding the possibilities of network communication managing the communication interfaces according to context, such as the appearance of new interferences in the medium (Merwaday, 2015;Sharma et al, 2017;Ribeiro et al, 2021). Zhou et al (2015) have proposed an aerial-ground cooperative vehicular networking architecture where each UAV is assigned to a ground vehicle.…”

“…In each interval defined for a new IM validation, the decisionmaking algorithms are verified using the network-evaluated conditions stored in the buffer. These algorithms are composed of decision-tree algorithms with a heuristic of sum of points, as described in detail (with mathematical formulations and state diagrams) in (Ribeiro et al, 2021). The output of the interface manager is the best new interface to be used in the next message sending step.…”

“…The Friis free-space propagation model was used, in the simulation, as a signal attenuation model. However, to include signal fading effects, the Nakagami statistical shading model was applied using a Rayleigh distribution, considering variations in signal strength due to multi-path fading, once the nodes could not be in LOS (line-of-sight) of each other, as seen in (Ribeiro et al, 2021).…”

Guest Editorial Special Issue on Time-Sensitive Networks for Unmanned Aircraft Systems

“…L. M.B. Ribeiro et al [ 1 ] presented an interface manager (IM) that can improve communication in multi-UAV networks in order to improve the stability of link quality of UAV-to-UAV (U2U) communication in the context that the distance between each other UAV varies as individual trajectories and the medium dynamics cannot be accurately estimated. The proposed interface manager is expected to define the best interface for sending messages based on on-flight state dynamically detected and estimated from the wireless medium.…”