VBCA: A Virtual Forces Clustering Algorithm for
Autonomous Aerial Drone Systems

arXiv:1607.05048v1 [cs.NI] 18 Jul 2016

Matthias R. Brust1 , Mustafa İlhan Akbaş2 and Damla Turgut2
1 Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore
2 University of Central Florida, USA
matthias brust@sutd.edu.sg, miakbas@eecs.ucf.edu, turgut@eecs.ucf.edu
Abstract—We consider the positioning problem of aerial drone
systems for efficient three-dimensional (3-D) coverage. Our solution draws from molecular geometry, where forces among
electron pairs surrounding a central atom arrange their positions.
In this paper, we propose a 3-D clustering algorithm for
autonomous positioning (VBCA) of aerial drone networks based
on virtual forces. These virtual forces induce interactions among
drones and structure the system topology. The advantages of our
approach are that (1) virtual forces enable drones to self-organize
the positioning process and (2) VBCA can be implemented
entirely localized.
Extensive simulations show that our virtual forces clustering approach produces scalable 3-D topologies exhibiting nearoptimal volume coverage. VBCA triggers efficient topology rearrangement for an altering number of nodes, while providing
network connectivity to the central drone. We also draw a
comparison of volume coverage achieved by VBCA against
existing approaches and find VBCA up to 40% more efficient.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Many aerial drones have integrated wireless networking
adaptors to enable the establishment and deployment of interconnected autonomously acting drone systems [1]. This flying
ad hoc network (FANET) can scan its environment and react
in real-time to adjust location and formation depending on
mission requirements [2], [3]. Evidently, these capabilities
provide tremendous potential for FANETs in applications
such as surveillance, search and rescue operations in disaster
recovery, and target localization [4].
In this paper, we introduce a virtual forces based clustering
algorithm (VBCA) for three-dimensional (3-D) positioning of
drones for efficient volume coverage, while maintaining a fully
connected communication network. The resulting network
topology after the drones’ positioning is a critical aspect to
achieve this goal. [4].
We use a localized virtual forces approach to create the
interactions among drones and to form the topology of the
system. The virtual forces are drawn from the Valence Shell
Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) model [5], where forces
among electron pairs surrounding a central atom actively
position the entities of a system.
The key goal of VBCA is providing the same efficient
VSEPR molecular geometries in the setting of a FANET, while
providing scalability analogously to the 3-D geometries of
VSEPR model. Each drone’s position is determined by the
distance and role of its neighboring drones. The central drone
acts as a connector influencing the entire topology of the

network geometry while individual drones are only affected
by their direct neighbors.
Simulation results show that VBCA ensures resilience of
the drone network resulting from self-organizing properties
of the proposed clustering process to a changing number of
drones (for scalability in clustering processes cf. [6], [7], [8]).
VBCA is computationally efficient while provideing networkwide connectivity. An altering number of nodes causes VBCA
to trigger efficient topological rearrangement proofing its adaptivity capabilities for real-world applications. We also draw a
comparison to the volume coverage achieved by VBCA against
existing approaches and find VBCA up to 40% more efficient.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. A
detailed description of our approach is given in Section II.
We present and discuss the simulation results in Section III.
Section IV summarizes the related work, and we conclude in
Section V.
II. A VSEPR F ORCES BASED C LUSTERING A LGORITHM
We approach the described 3-D drone positioning problem
with a method inspired by the VSEPR model [5]. The purpose
of the VSEPR model is to predict the geometric formations
of molecules by using the peripheral atom alignments around
a central atom as illustrated in Fig. 1.
The geometric formations of VSEPR model are based on
the notion that electron pairs arrange themselves to be as far
apart as possible from each other with minimal repulsion. The
arrangement of distances within the VSEPR model is utilized
in VBCA to maximize the total covered volume by the drones.
Hence, the goal of our approach is the determination of drone
system topology by using the VSEPR model. The VSEPR
model geometries fulfill our optimization requirements by (1)
providing an optimal covered volume and (2) maintaining a
fully connected communication network.
A. System model
The drone system N considered in this paper is composed
of |N | nodes. Each drone n ∈ N is capable to communicate
with neighboring drones in the communication range r and
collecting data from the environment. We define a central
node c, which is assumed to be more capable compared to
the remaining nodes in terms of energy resources, sensor
receptors and communication adaptors. The central drone with

Standard VSEPR geometries

Extended set of VSEPR geometries

Fig. 1: The VSEPR model describes standard geometries as well as supplemental solutions for certain system configurations.

its stronger capabilities can be used as an interface to a wider
communication backbone.
The initialization of the clustering process in VBCA starts
with a role assignment for the central drone, which is valid
throughout the lifetime of this particular system. More specifically, the central drone is initialized with its role and all other
drones are assigned as the peripheral drones. The peripheral
nodes are homogeneous regarding communication ranges, and
each drone communicates exclusively with its direct neighbors.
According to this procedure, each drone must have the central
drone in its transmission range for the network connectivity.
The high mobility of the surveilled objects and the frequent
changes in the environment are important examples of the
challenges faced in drone systems. Since these conditions can
result in malfunctioning drones, the possibility of a change
in the number of drones must be taken into account. The
proposed approach deals with these challenges in real-time
by arranging the topology according to the total number of
drones in the system.

Algorithm 1 presents the utilization of the virtual forces and
their collaborative function on the drone network.
Algorithm 1: VBCA
Input : A set of drones D with its positions p and
velocities V
Output: A set of drones D with adjusted positions p and
velocities V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

a∗

8
9
10

B. VBCA protocol
The VSEPR model describes the molecular geometry formation process by a mutual repulsion process by negative
electrons, which causes self-arrangement of the electron pairs
towards a steady-state with minimal repulsive forces acting
on the electrons. Therefore, we leverage the VSEPR forces
as virtual forces acting between the nodes in a drone ad hoc
network. These forces are defined as follows:
1) Attraction: The attraction force acts between the central
drone and each of the remaining drones. Therefore, the
central drone acts as an attracting source for the peripheral drones. This attracting force pulls the drones to the
center of the topology to maintain network connectivity
during the operation.
2) Repulsion: The repulsion force acts among all drones
except the central drone. The repulsion forces refrain the
drone system to collapse toward the center as a result
of the attraction force. Therefore, the distances to the
central drone increase as the drones repel each other,
until the forces acting on the nodes are balanced.

cN ode ← central node;
pN ode ← pheripheral node;
foreach d ∈ D do
N (d) ← FindDirectNeighbors(d);
foreach n ∈ N do
if T ype (d) = cN ode & T ype (n) = pN ode then
V

i
h attract,d
 P (t) ←

12
13
14
15

− pd (t − 1) ;

end
if T ype (d) = pN ode & T ype (n) = pN ode then
V
(t)←
" repuls,d
!#
P
r∗ d

11

pn (t−1)
|N |

n∈N

1

(

,

1

,

1

) δ(yd,n (t−1)) δ(zd,n (t−1))

δ xd,n (t−1)

;

end
end
Vd (t) ← [Vattraction,d (t) + Vrepulsion,d (t)];
pd (t) ← [pd (t − 1) + Vd (t)];
end

The resultant velocity vector Vd for drone d after time t is
calculated in Algorithm 1 by considering the combinational
effects of the attraction forces Vattract,d (t) and the repulsion
forces Vrepuls,d (t). Vattract,d (t) is the velocity vector for the
attraction force of drone d at time t and Vrepuls,d (t) is the
velocity vector for the repulsion force of drone d at time t. The
current position of the drone d is calculated by the velocity
vector [pd (t − 1) + Vd (t)].
The method T ype(d) returns the drone type of d (i.e.,
whether it is a central drone or a peripheral drone) and N (d) is
the set of neighboring drones which are directly connected to
d. For this, we define the function δ (xd,n (t)) to measure the

dimensional distance between two drones d and n. According
to this function, the distance in direction x at t is given as
follows:
δ (xd,n (t)) = p (xd (t)) − p (xn (t))
Similar equations are used for y and z directions, whereby
p (d (t)) is the position of the current drone at time t and
p (n (t)) is the position of a neighbor from set N at time t.
The parameter a and r are introduced to calibrate the strength
of the attraction force and repulsion force, respectively.
It is necessary to adjust the absolute strength level of
each force such that the resulting topologies resemble the
geometries described by the VSEPR model. For this reason,
we use specific parameters in VBCA, which balance the
strength of the attraction and repulsion forces (see Algorithm
1). This fundamental formulation of two forces and their usage
in the algorithm resembles the idea in the geometries of the
VSEPR model.
The application of VBCA results in a self-stabilizing system
with VSEPR model-like topologies as steady-state. Hence, the
formation and maintenance of these topologies are critical for
a successful execution of VBCA. Locations of the drones must
be near-optimal in terms of closeness to the central drone and
their relative positions according to the other peripheral nodes
to obtain steady-state topologies. For this purpose, a network
parameter (CP ) is introduced following, and all possible
topologies formed by the virtual forces in our approach are
considered:
1) Compactness parameter: The transmission range r is an
influence on the distances used in the topologies determined
by our model. However, the virtual forces act on each drone
in different directions depending on its specific position in the
topology. Therefore, the distances that the drones communicate in the steady-state of the system are different than r. The
distances in VSEPR model are determined by physical rules.
However in VBCA, the topology of the aerial network can
be preserved while adjusting the distances according to the
application conditions.
We introduce the compactness parameter CP to regulate
the closeness of drones in the geometric formation. CP
presents the option to manipulate how compact the steadystate geometry must be. This is an advantage of VBCA as
it eliminates the requirement for constant distance values,
while having no specific influence on the considered geometry.
Therefore, CP provides the capability to dynamically change
distances in the topology for scenario-specific requirements
such as following the contours of the observed environment.
2) Extended set of VSEPR topologies: There are suplemental cases under the VSEPR model, for which multiple extra
topologies are possible for an identical number number of
atoms. This extended set of topologies results from multiple
geometrical solutions possible by the forces-dynamics in the
system. This solution space is built in by the heterogeneity
property of the model. Heterogeneity in VBCA plays a crucial
role in two aspects: (a) the force types are different (such

as attraction and repulsion) and (b) the strength/magnitude of
each force type is alterable.
The connectivity constraints imposed by our scenario keep
the drones within a certain distance to each other. In other
words, the peripheral drones can achieve better volume coverage unless they have the central drone connectivity constraint.
There are extensions for the VSEPR model to deal with the
interconnection of multiple topologies formed by multiple
central drones [9]. In this paper, however, we focus on the
cases dealing with a single central node and reserve multiple
central node scenarios for future work.
III. S IMULATION S TUDY
VBCA has been implemented in Wolfram Mathematica
for system visualization as well as performance evaluation.
Simulation results are measured when the system reaches
a steady-state. The condition for steady-state is defined as
a minimum movement threshold, while the entire system
remains fully connected.
A. Simulation settings
We focus on two aspects for the performance evaluation
of VBCA: The effective volume coverage of the resulting
topologies and the average distance from the central node to
the peripheral nodes and its variations.
The compactness parameter CP is used to define the
network density and its value varies from 10 to 70 with an
increment of 10 in the simulations. We set the transmission
range to rt = 80m, while the collision range rc is set to
rc = 60m. The number of drones in a cluster varies between 3
to 10 according to the number used in the specific simulations.
B. Simulation execution
For each simulation, all nodes are initially deployed at the
same coordinates with one dedicated node as central node.
After VBCA has been initialized, the virtual forces start to
impact the topological features of the drone cluster and the
topology unfolds toward its steady-state configuration. VBCA
leads to an autonomous system of drones for which the steadystate position of the drones are optimal in terms of closeness
to the central drone and the repulsion among each other.
Our simulations reveal that the VBCA clustered topologies
in their steady-state configuration are exclusively VSEPR
geometries from the standard set as well as from the extended
set of VSEPR geometries (cf. Fig. 1).
Fig. 2 demonstrates how a VBCA geometry unfolds on the
case of a system with one central and seven peripheral nodes.
Further simulations conducted with VBCA also reproduced
successfully an extensive set of VSEPR geometries, including
standard VSEPR and extended VSEPR geometries. Some
results are visually shown in Fig. 2.
C. Simulation results
1) Compactness parameter vs. node distance: In Fig. 3,
we demonstrate the relation between the value of CP and the
average distance from the peripheral nodes to the central node
for topologies with different number of nodes.

An expanding VBCA topology with one central and seven peripheral nodes

A set of VBCA generated VSEPR geometries
Fig. 2: Expanding VBCA topology reproducing VSEPR geometries and a set of VBCA generated VSEPR geometries.

70
CP=10
CP=20

60

Average Distance to Central Drone (m)

CP=30
CP=40
CP=50

50

CP=60
CP=70
40

30

20

10

0

3

4

5

6
7
Number of Nodes

8

9

10

Fig. 3: Average distance from each node to the central node
for different CP values.
12
11
10
9
8
Distance (m)

Fig. 3 shows the effect of the same CP value for different
number of nodes on the variance of the average distance. For
instance, when CP is 10, the average distance to the central
node varies between 5 to 8m, in a range of 3. However,
when CP is 70, this range increases 30m. Therefore, for the
scenarios with larger CP values, the drones must be able to
exchange data with the central node from further distances as
the number of drones increases in the network.
The results also show the effect of the CP in average
distance from the central node to the peripheral node. As
the CP becomes larger, the average distance to the central
node increases its values for the same number of nodes. For
topologies with a larger number of nodes, the increasing CP
values have a more significant effect on the average distance
to the central node.
The results in Fig. 3 show that the transmission range rt
and the CP create important requirements for the selection
of each other. For instance, when the drones have a relatively
small transmission range, the CP cannot be chosen to be very
large as the drones operate in short distance to each other.
2) Stability of the topologies: In Fig. 4, the average position
variation of each node is demonstrated for an eight drone
scenario. Since the position of the central node does not
change over time, it is not included and the position variations
of other nodes are absolute values. Hence, whether the node
approaches the central node or drifts away, the absolute value
of change in the distance is given.
The results in Fig. 4 show how the drone topology becomes
stable after the self organization period. The variation in the
positions of the nodes asymptotically converges to 0.15m after
10 time steps. The stability of the topology is critical for
the efficient operation of the drone network since it provides
optimum volume coverage for the lifetime of the scenario.
3) Volume coverage for different topologies: The main
purpose of VBCA is to provide an efficient positioning in
terms of maximizing the total covered volume around the
central drone.

7
6
5

4
3

2
1
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Timesteps

Fig. 4: The variation in the position of each node in reference
to the central node.

6

6

x 10

3
CP=10
CP=20
CP=30
CP=40
CP=50
CP=60
CP=70

7

6

Volume

5

x 10

VBCA (CP=50)
APAWSAN
VBCA (CP=40)

2.5

2

Volume

8

4

1.5

3

1
2

0.5
1

0

3

4

5

6
7
Number of Drones

8

9

10

Fig. 5: Comparison of total coverage volume of geometry
configuration with different number of nodes.

The inputs for calculating the volume coverage are the
number of spherical covered volumes, the positions and the
communication ranges of drones. Hence the theoretical maximum volume coverage Vm for n drones is calculated as
follows:

Vm =

n
X
4
i=1

3

πci 3 ,

where ci is the observation range of the drone i.
The total volume coverage of the drones is smaller than
Vm when there are intersections of the coverage volumes in
the scenario. Then, the total volume coverage is calculated
by using each drone’s individual volume coverage and taking
the union of this result considering the drones’ respective
coordinates.
Fig. 5 shows the drone cluster coverage values for topologies with one central drone and with an increased number of
drones. For all CP values, the total volume coverage follows
a linear increase as the total number of drones increases from
3 to 10. However, the rate of this increase varies for different
CP values.
4) Volume coverage comparison: We also obtained results
for comparing VBCA to APAWSAN [1] and the 3-D deployment approach by Lee et al. [10] regarding efficiency of total
volume coverage. APAWSAN provides 1-hop connectivity
from the central drone to the peripheral drones by placing each
of these drones in the exact positions calculated according to
VSEPR model. In contrast, VBCA uses a force based approach
producing these topologies instead of executing calculations
for exact positions. Therefore, it is important to see how this
force based method affects the individual node positions and
the covered volume. Fig. 6 shows results for VBCA with CP
set to 40 and 50, and APAWSAN with a drone transmission
range of 40m.

0

3

4

5

6
7
Number of Drones

8

9

10

Fig. 6: Volume coverage of VBCA compared to volume
coverage of APAWSAN.
IV. R ELATED W ORK
There are various approaches for the 3-D coordination and
positioning of aerial networks. The aerial network presented
by Elston and Frew [11] contains a central ship with multiple
drones, which use field tracking for the hierarchy. Dumiak
[12] proposes a coordination mechanism for aerial networks
to complete the tasks by multiple drones. UAVNet is an
autonomous deployment framework for FANETs by Morgenthaler et al. [13]. UAVNet aims to provide an efficient
way to construct a communication network, which can be
controlled by a single remote user. The mobility prediction
clustering algorithm [14] uses the dictionary tree structure
prediction algorithm with link expiration time mobility model
to overcome the challenge of frequent cluster updates by predicting the network topology updates. Luo et al. [15] propose
a positioning and collision avoidance strategy for UAVs in
search scenarios, which uses received signal strength (RSS)
from the onboard communication module. De Medeiros et al.
[16] propose a prognostics and health monitoring based multiUAV task assignment approach to include system probability
of failure into task assignment in a drone system. This method
assigns tasks based on the drone health condition using the
Receding Horizon Task Assignment (RHTA) algorithm.
Brust and Strimbu [4] introduce a UAV networked swarm
model for forestry assessment and environmental monitoring.
The UAV swarm is able to establish, maintain multi-hop
connectivity and avoid obstacles, while assessing the forest
environment (e.g. tree localization, tree mapping). Iskandarani
et al. [17] use Linear Model Predictive Control (LMPC) to
implement line abreast, triangular and cross formation flights
for drones in simulations and experiments. The Reconfigurable
Flight Control System Architecture (RFCSA) [18] is a control
framework for small UAVs. RFCSA utilizes a different module
for each function of a drone to minimize the complexity of
implementation and coordination during the flight.
A geometry-based deployment and positioning strategy is
used in VBCA. Lee et al. [10] proposes a geometric approach

for addressing the deployment of an autonomous mobile robot
swarm randomly distributed in 3-D space. Through selective
and dynamic interaction, four robots form a tetrahedron topology. The Regular Tetrahedron Formation (RTF) strategy [19]
by Zeng and Li is proposed for a swarm of robots which is
based on a virtual spring mechanism to form the topologies.
The movements at each time step are dependent on the local
position information of three neighbors.
In an alternative geometric approach, Akbas et al. [1], [20]
use VSEPR model [5] to present a node positioning strategy,
APAWSAN, for drone networks. According to VSEPR model,
the peripheral atom locations in a molecule are defined by the
repulsion forces among the electron pairs. APAWSAN utilizes
the VSEPR model to position the drones with actor roles
around one central drone, which has the role of a sink in a
wireless sensor and actuator network. The other drones use the
information shared by the central drone to position themselves
around the central node with high network connectivity and
volume coverage. APAWSAN calculates and provides accurate
drone positions with central control, i.e. assuming centralized
computation of the drones’ position. However, VBCA further
reduces complexity compared to APAWSAN by using a force
based approach at each drone depending on local information.
V. C ONCLUSION
VBCA describes an autonomous and dynamic system of
drones for which the steady-state location of the peripheral
drones are optimal in terms of their distance to the central
drone and the repulsion among each other. The resulting
system provides a constraint-based efficient volume coverage
with the constraint that the peripheral drones must be connected to the central atom. Thus, VBCA produces clustered
topologies which accurately reflect those of the VSEPR model
geometries.
Simulation results show that VBCA provides topologies
with network connectivity and efficient volume coverage.
Results also reveal an improved convergence of drone clusters
towards a steady-state. Additionally, we show that VBCA
outperforms two geometric deployment approaches from the
literature in terms of volume coverage. We conclude that the
nature-inspired topologies found in the molecular geometries
can be created by a rather small set of computationally efficient
local virtual forces to efficiently position autonomous drones.
Future work will include the implementation of VBCA
topologies that handle multiple central drones as well as a
protocol for the interconnection of multiple clusters. These
configurations, eventually equipped with an integrated routing
scheme to manage data collection and aggregation, will enable
VBCA to be applied to irregular real-world objects such as
bridges and buildings.

R EFERENCES
[1] M. İ. Akbaş and Damla Turgut, “APAWSAN: Actor positioning for
aerial wireless sensor and actor networks,” in Proc. of the IEEE Conf.
on Local Computer Networks (LCN), October 2011, pp. 567–574.
[2] I. Bekmezci, O. K. Sahingoz, and S. Temel, “Flying Ad-Hoc Networks
(FANETs): A survey,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1254–1270,
2013.
[3] G. Danoy, M. R. Brust, and P. Bouvry, “Connectivity stability in
autonomous multi-level uav swarms for wide area monitoring,” in
Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Design and Analysis of Intelligent
Vehicular Networks and Applications (DIVANet), 2015.
[4] M. R. Brust and B. Strimbu, “A Networked Swarm Model for UAV
Deployment in the Assessment of Forest Environments,” in IEEE
International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and
Information Processing (ISSNIP), 2015.
[5] R. Gillespie and R. Nyholm, “Inorganic stereochemistry,” Quart. Rev.
Chem. Soc., vol. 11, pp. 339–380, 1957.
[6] M. R. Brust, H. Frey, and S. Rothkugel, “Adaptive multi-hop clustering
in mobile networks,” in ACM International Conference on Mobile
Technology, Applications, and Systems. ACM, 2007, pp. 132–138.
[7] M. R. Brust, A. Andronache, and S. Rothkugel, “Waca: A hierarchical
weighted clustering algorithm optimized for mobile hybrid networks,” in
3rd International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications
(ICWMC’07). IEEE, 2007, pp. 23–23.
[8] M. R. Brust, H. Frey, and S. Rothkugel, “Dynamic multi-hop clustering
for mobile hybrid wireless networks,” in ACM Conference on Ubiquitous
Information Management and Communication. ACM, 2008, pp. 130–
135.
[9] M. İ. Akbaş, G. Solmaz and D. Turgut, “Actor positioning based on
molecular geometry in aerial sensor networks,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), June 2012,
pp. 508–512.
[10] G. Lee, Y. Nishimura, K. Tatara, and N. Y. Chong, “Three dimensional
deployment of robot swarms,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2010, pp.
5073–5078.
[11] J. Elston and E. W. Frew, “Hierarchical Distributed Control for Search
and Tracking by Heterogeneous Aerial Robot Networks,” in Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation
(ICRA), 2008, pp. 170–175.
[12] M. Dumiak, “Robocopters unite!” IEEE Spectrum, vol. 46, no. 2, p. 12,
2009.
[13] S. Morgenthaler, T. Braun, Z. Zhao, T. Staub, and M. Anwander,
“UAVNet: A mobile wireless mesh network using Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) Workshops, 2012, pp. 1603–1608.
[14] C. Zang and S. Zang, “Mobility prediction clustering algorithm for
UAV networking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Global Communications
Conference (GLOBECOM) Workshops, December 2011, pp. 1158–1161.
[15] C. Luo, S. McClean, G. Parr, L. Teacy, and R. De Nardi, “UAV Position
Estimation and Collision Avoidance Using the Extended Kalman Filter,”
IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Technology, vol. 62, no. 6, 2013.
[16] I. Paixao de Medeiros, L. Ramos Rodrigues, R. Santos,
E. Hideiti Shiguemori, N. Junior, and L. Cairo, “PHM-based
Multi-UAV task assignment,” in IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon),
2014, pp. 42–49.
[17] M. Iskandarani, S. N. Givigi, G. Fusina, and A. Beaulieu, “Unmanned
aerial vehicle formation flying using linear model predictive control,” in
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon), 2014, pp. 18–23.
[18] Z. Deng, C. Ma, and M. Zhu, “A reconfigurable flight control system
architecture for Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” in IEEE Systems
Conference (SysCon), 2012, pp. 1–4.
[19] G. Zeng and X. Li, “An Artifical Physics-based 3D Swarm Control
Strategy,” in Proc. of the IEEE Inter. Conf. on Electric Information and
Control Engineering (ICEICE), 2011, pp. 148–151.
[20] K. Li, M. İ. Akbaş, D. Turgut, S. S. Kanhere and S. Jha, “Reliable
positioning with hybrid antenna model for aerial wireless sensor and
actor networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communications
and Networking Conference (WCNC), April 2014, pp. 2904–2909.

