kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Jean-Claude Sangano, Asatilla Abdukhakimov and Kim Dong-Seong, "4D Trajectory Planning, Guidance and Communication Handover between UAVs in Ad Hoc Network", 15th IEEE International Workshop on Factory Communication Systems (WFCS - 2019)
By : Jean-Claude
Date : 2019-03-25
Views : 285

Dear Asatilla Abdukhakimov,

Unfortunately, your paper 9, titled 4D Trajectory Planning, Guidance and Communication Handover between UAVs in WSN was not one of those accepted for this years workshop.

The reviews for your paper are attached below. We hope the comments will be useful to you to improve your paper going forward.

We would like to thank you for your submission to and support of WFCS 2019, and we hope that you will consider WFCS again in future for you submissions.

Best Regards,
Gerhard Hancke and Emiliano Sisinni
(WFCS 2019 Program co-Chairs)


----------------------- REVIEW 1 ---------------------
PAPER: 9
TITLE: 4D Trajectory Planning, Guidance and Communication Handover between UAVs in WSN
AUTHORS: Jean-Claude Sangano, Asatilla Abdukhakimov and Dong Seong Kim

Overall evaluation: 2 (accept)

----------- Review -----------
Thank all authors contribution on this article.
In this paper, I am concerned about the simulation effect of the article. Through trajectory planning and guidance, the target is regarded to effective handover between a lower energy UAV and a full powered UAV. The simulation conclusion should be analyzed in more detail, especially for the last three simulation scenarios with three data Tables.


----------------------- REVIEW 2 ---------------------
PAPER: 9
TITLE: 4D Trajectory Planning, Guidance and Communication Handover between UAVs in WSN
AUTHORS: Jean-Claude Sangano, Asatilla Abdukhakimov and Dong Seong Kim

Overall evaluation: -1 (weak reject)

----------- Review -----------
Pros.
+ The topic is interesting.
+ The paper well organized.

Cons.
- End of 1st column page 2, Sect. II. It is stated that "A 4D approach is superior over the 3D approach because 3D autonomous path planning is inadequate especially in highly complex and dynamic environments.", but the reasons are not specified.

- The legend of Fig. 7 is not clearly explained.

- In Fig. 2 there are 2 y-axis, please fix it.

- In Equation (20), what is the order of magnitude of the Ed parameter? is it significant compared to the others? Is it possible that the energy required for communications is orders of magnitude lower than the one consumed by the motor/motors?

- At the end of Sect. V it is stated that:
"the performance is assessed in the function of the following parameters:
* The total amount of data collected.
* The number of interruptions occurred.
* The number of successful handover."
However in Sect. VI these parameters do not appear in the results, neither they are mentioned in the text.

- The results in Sect. VI are not commented, the text introducing the results and the parameters is not sufficient without an explanation of tables and figures.

- The references should be updated with more recent works (there are only two cited works of 2017, the others are older).


----------------------- REVIEW 3 ---------------------
PAPER: 9
TITLE: 4D Trajectory Planning, Guidance and Communication Handover between UAVs in WSN
AUTHORS: Jean-Claude Sangano, Asatilla Abdukhakimov and Dong Seong Kim

Overall evaluation: -2 (reject)

----------- Review -----------
The paper is routinely written, at least the major part of it. Overall, however, it is out of scope of WFCS which has a focus on (industrial) communication systems. The largest part of the paper (and the most mature one) deals with flight kinematics which however does not seem that novel. What is a bit irritating is that for the calculation of the handover point P2, the movement of UAV1 (i.e., the time it will take UAV2 to reach it) does not seem to be taken into account. How can the shortest path be found if the motion of the target is not anticipated? Furthermore, it seems from the simulations that UAV2 is waiting at some point of the flight pattern of UAV1, anyway, which seems to be a severe limitation especially for disaster relief scenarios.

The only part some concerned with networks is the handover scenario which however is not elaborated in much detail and seems not fully correct. For instance, why is the power needed by the receiver to receive, decode, and process the data connected to the transmission power of the ground node? Why is the power needed to transmit data to UAV2 proportional to the "power of received signal by the coming UAV"? Finally, why is uninterrupted data collection so important in disaster scenarios? And if so, how can this be ensured? Sending a ground node to sleep mode is certainly not sufficient! It takes much more to implement a reliable handover.

Summing up, I cannot recommend the paper for WFCS. If at all, the handover topic could be elaborated in more detail and resubmitted as work in progress.