Aerospace 2015, 2, 392-422; doi:10.3390/aerospace2030392
aerospace
ISSN 2226-4310
www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace
Article
Unmanned Aerial ad Hoc Networks: Simulation-Based
Evaluation of Entity Mobility Models’ Impact on
Routing Performance
Jean-Daniel Medjo Me Biomo
1
, Thomas Kunz
1,
*, Marc St-Hilaire
1
and Yifeng Zhou
2
1
Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive,
Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada; E-Mails: jemeda@sce.carleton.ca (J.-D.M.M.B.);
marc_st_hilaire@carleton.ca (M.S.-H.)
2
Communications Research Centre Canada, 3701 Carling Avenue, PO Box 11490, Station H,
Ottawa, ON K2H 8S2, Canada; E-Mail: yifeng.zhou@crc.ca
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: tkunz@sce.carleton.ca;
Tel.: +1-613-520-3573; Fax: +1-613-520-5727.
Academic Editor: David Anderson
Received: 18 February 2015 / Accepted: 17 June 2015 / Published: 30 June 2015
Abstract: An unmanned aerial ad hoc network (UAANET) is a special type of mobile
ad hoc network (MANET). For these networks, researchers rely mostly on simulations to
evaluate their proposed networking protocols. Hence, it is of great importance that the
simulation environment of a UAANET replicates as much as possible the reality of UAVs.
One major component of that environment is the movement pattern of the UAVs. This
means that the mobility model used in simulations has to be thoroughly understood in
terms of its impact on the performance of the network. In this paper, we investigate how
mobility models affect the performance of UAANET in simulations in order to come up
with conclusions/recommendations that provide a benchmark for future UAANET simulations.
To that end, we first propose a few metrics to evaluate the mobility models. Then, we present
five random entity mobility models that allow nodes to move almost freely and independently
from one another and evaluate four carefully-chosen MANET/UAANET routing protocols:
ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV), optimized link state routing (OLSR),
reactive-geographic hybrid routing (RGR) and geographic routing protocol (GRP). In addition,
flooding is also evaluated. The results show a wide variation of the protocol performance
over different mobility models. These performance differences can be explained by the
mobility model characteristics, and we discuss these effects. The results of our analysis
OPEN ACCESS
