Combining Circular and Gauss-Markov Mobility Models for FANET Enhancement

Suhad Faisal Behadili; Alyaa Safaa  Abdulhameed

doi:10.30526/38.3.4075

Authors

Suhad Faisal Behadili Computer Science Department, College of Sciences, University of Baghdad https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4617-8464
Alyaa Safaa Abdulhameed Computer Science Department, College of Sciences, University of Baghdad https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8987-9063

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30526/38.3.4075

Keywords:

Mobility Models, FANET, QoS, Gauss-Markov, Ad-hoc networks, superposition, Circular model

Abstract

Nowadays, the effectiveness of Flying Ad-hoc Networks (FANETs) has proven their importance in many fields, such as the military, healthcare, entertainment, etc. In such networks, realistic mobility modeling is pivotal for accurately simulating Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) behaviors and their interactions within the network. To achieve this realism and improve network performance metrics of the network, multiple Mobility Models (MMs) can be integrated, allowing UAVs to exhibit complex movement patterns that reflect real-world dynamics. This paper proposes a combination of Circular Mobility (CM) and Gauss-Markov (GM) models (CCGM) in a superposition mobility model to determine the final pattern of the model and how it affects the Quality of Services (QoS). So, the OMNeT++ was used as a simulation tool to achieve this purpose. The QoS used for analyzing the model are End-to-End Delay (E2ED), throughput, Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), jitter, and packet loss. The simulation results were introduced and compared with respect to four scenarios. The first two scenarios implied the models independently, while the last two scenarios implied the proposed model (CCGM); each scenario was evaluated with Ad-hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), and Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) routing protocols. The simulation results demonstrate that the proposed model (CCGM) outperforms the GM and CM models in terms of E2ED, PDR, throughput, jitter, and packet loss. Consequently, the CCGM model exhibits an average E2ED of best results with a GPSR of 0.009 seconds in scenario 4, while it exhibits the best results in AODV with PDR of 90.82%, throughput of 669614, jitter of 0.021, and packet loss of 9.18% in scenario 4 as well. This indicates that the CCGM model could enhance the QoS and movement realism, making it useful in FANET applications

Author Biographies

Suhad Faisal Behadili, Computer Science Department, College of Sciences, University of Baghdad

Prof. Assis. in Computer Sciences
Alyaa Safaa Abdulhameed, Computer Science Department, College of Sciences, University of Baghdad

Msc. at Computer Science Department, College of Sciences

References

1. Wheeb A.H., Nordin R., Samah A.A., Kanellopoulos D. Performance evaluation of standard and modified OLSR protocols for uncoordinated UAV ad-hoc networks in search and rescue environments. Electronics (Basel) 2023; 12(6):1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12061334

2. Wheeb A.H., Nordin R., Samah A.A., Alsharif M.H., Khan M.A. Topology-based routing protocols and mobility models for flying ad hoc networks: A contemporary review and future research directions. Drones 2022; 6(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6010009

3. Hoomod H.K., Jebur T.K. Modified radial based neural network for clustering and routing optimal path in wireless network. Ibn Al-Haitham J. Pure Appl. Sci. 2017; 30(2):233–244.

4. Khan M.F., Das I. Analysis of various mobility models and their impact on QoS in MANET. Comput. Intell. Syst. Appl. 2021:131–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0407-2_10

5. Abdullah M.N., Dagher K.E. Performance evaluation based on multi-UAV in airborne computer network system. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2022; 15(4). https://doi.org/10.22266/ijies2022.0831.55

6. Srivastava A., Prakash J. Future FANET with application and enabling techniques: Anatomization and sustainability issues. Comput. Sci. Rev. 2021; 39:100359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2020.100359

7. Safaei B., Mohammadsalehi A., Khoosani K.T., Zarbaf S., Monazzah A.M., Samie F., Bauer L., Henkel J., Ejlali A. Impacts of mobility models on RPL-based mobile IoT infrastructures: An evaluative comparison and survey. IEEE Access 2020; 8:167779–167829. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3022793

8. Albu-Salih A., Al-Abbas G. Performance evaluation of mobility models over UDP traffic pattern for MANET using NS-2. Baghdad Sci. J. 2021; 18(1):175–183.

9. Kaur P., Singh A., Gill S.S. RGIM: An integrated approach to improve QoS in AODV, DSR and DSDV routing protocols for FANETs using the chain mobility model. Comput. J. 2020; 63(10):1500–1512.

10. Alqaysi M.K., Behadili S.F. A review of flow migration through mobile networks. Iraqi J. Sci. 2022; 63(5):2243–2261. https://doi.org/10.24996/ijs.2022.63.5.36

11. Kumar V., Dwivedi R.K., Prakash S. An improved Gauss-Markov mobility model for FANET using NS3 simulation in 3-dimension environment. In: 14th Int. Conf. Comput. Commun. Netw. Technol. IEEE 2023:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCNT56998.2023.10307875

12. Mi J., Dai Z. A 3D smooth mobility model based on semi-random circular movement for FANETs. In: 7th Int. Conf. Comput. Commun. (ICCC) IEEE 2021:954–959. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCC54389.2021.9674424

13. Shukla A.K., Jha C., Kumar A., Research S., Jha C.K. Simulation based assessment of realistic mobility pattern in ad hoc networks. Int. J. Comput. Appl. (IJCA) 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2631242333

14. Zahra M., Wang Y. Adaptive mobility models for cluster-based wireless sensor network with mobile sink. In: 12th Int. Conf. Commun. Softw. Netw. (ICCSN) IEEE 2020:133–137. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSN49894.2020.9139053

15. Mohamed O., Behadili S.F. Epidemiological complex networks: A survey. Iraqi J. Sci. 2023; 64(8):4208–4227. https://doi.org/10.24996/ijs.2023.64.8.40

16. Arafat M.Y., Moh S. Routing protocols for unmanned aerial vehicle networks: A survey. IEEE Access 2019; 7:99694–99720. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2930813

17. Amponis G., Lagkas T., Argyriou V., Moscholios I., Zevgara M., Ouzounidis S., et al. Anchored self-similar 3D Gauss-Markov mobility model for ad hoc routing scenarios. IET Netw. 2023; 12(5):250–259. https://doi.org/10.1049/ntw2.12089

18. Bezziane M.B., Sahraoui Y., Brik B., Mekkas L., Bougeurra S., Khaldi A. On the performance evaluation of mobility model-based GPSR routing protocol in flying ad hoc networks. In: 6th Int. Conf. Pattern Anal. Intell. Syst., IEEE, Algeria, 2024:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/PAIS62114.2024.10541298

19. Naser M.T., Wheeb A.H. Implementation of RWP and Gauss Markov mobility model for multi-UAV networks in search and rescue environment. Int. J. Interact. Mobile Technol. 2022; 16(23):125–137. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i23.35559

20. Wang W., Guan X., Wang B., Wang Y. A novel mobility model based on semi-random circular movement in mobile ad hoc networks. Inf. Sci. 2010; 180(3):399–413.

21. Anjum M.N., Wang H. Mobility modeling and stochastic property analysis of airborne network. IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng. 2019; 7(3):1282–1294. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSE.2019.2921482

22. Rohrer J.P., Cetinkaya E.K., Narra H., Broyles D., Peters K., Sterbenz J.P. AeroRP performance in highly-dynamic airborne networks using 3D Gauss-Markov mobility model. In: MILCOM - Mil. Commun. Conf., IEEE, USA, 2011:834–841. https://doi.org/10.1109/MILCOM.2011.6127781

23. Roy R.R. Handbook of mobile ad hoc networks for mobility models. Chapter 10. Springer US, 2011:311–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6050-4_10

24. Alenazi M., Sahin C., Sterbenz J.P.G. Design improvement and implementation of 3D Gauss-Markov mobility model. In: 48th Int. Telemetering Conf. (ITC), 2012.

25. Mhalhal N.K., Behadili S.F. Mobility prediction based on deep learning approach using GPS phone data. Ibn Al-Haitham J. Pure Appl. Sci. 2024; 37(4):423–438. https://doi.org/10.30526/37.4.3916