Energy Consumption Analysis of Beamforming and Cooperative Schemes for Aircraft Wireless Sensor Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper investigates eight beamforming and cooperative schemes for aircraft WSNs. The research methodology is based upon simulations. The simulations lead to interesting concluding remarks. The manuscript can be further improved by considering the issues stated below:

-Firstly, the abstract requires more quantitative insights about the performance indicator of the investigated schemes, and especially the ones that have been found superior.

-Related work ad literature survey content of the article is limited. The authors are encouraged to dedicate a section on related work and literature review. 

-The contribution of this article to the literature should be clarified with respect to the state of the art.

-A notation table at the beginning of the system model section would be helpful. Currently, the reader has to read between the lines.

-Comments on figures are mainly based on qualitative judgements. For instance "ABF scheme is better than the others between
spectral efficiency from 1.2 to the end." The improvement should be quantitatively stated in the results rather than providing qualitative statements.

-Simulation environment details should be further provided.

-What is the impact of a larger network where there are more than three nodes.

-Similar comments regarding performance discussions can be made for the conclusions section, as well. The authors should be more quantitative when making concluding remarks.

-A discussion on open issues, challenges and future directions should be thoroughly discussed in the paper.

 

Proofreading is required as there are some typos and mistake such as but not limited to the following examples:

Abstract:  simaulation

Section 3: ...in order to analyze the performance of energy consumption and throughput metrics non-cooperative schemes, beamforming schemes, and cooperative schemes in the order are represented. ==> ...in order to analyze the performance of energy consumption and throughput metrics, non-cooperative schemes, beamforming schemes, and cooperative schemes are presented.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We made a report based on your comment.

Please review the attached report.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. This paper investigated eight schemes for aircraft wireless sensor networks to analyze the total energy consumption and throughput performance.
2. 
   Section 2.2 and 2.3 use a lot of paragraphs to address the Categorization of wireless communication and Channel models in the aircraft. However, only a minority of the contents are used in this paper.
3. Line 242, 349, the number of antennas is not given in the whole paper. Thus, the results of ABF and DBF cannot be evaluated.
4. The line 271-273, “In the first phase, the source node transmits a packet to the relay node and the destination node, in the second phase the relay node transmits the packet from the source node to the destination node.” If the first step can transmit a packet to the destination node from the source node, does it necessary to use the second phase? Is something wrong here?
5. Line 328, “we fix the distance between the source node and the destination node as 10m, the distance between the 329 source node and the relay node as 5m, and the distance between the relay node and the destination node as 5m.”
   The parameter at this point is not suitable. Almost all of the wireless communication technologies can directly communicate with the destination with distance 10m. The relay node in this scenario becomes redundant. Considering applying the model to the real scenario of the aircraft, the distance between the source node and destination node is at least 20 m in ATR 72-600, 50m in Boeing 747. The parameters are not well designed
6. This paper devotes its effort on performance analysis but transmitting delay, error rate, packet loss rate, and the reliability and QoS. Authors majorly focus on energy consumption and throughput.
7. ABF does not display in figure 6.
8. The k-element antenna does not clear given in figure 9, 10. Is k = 1 for comparing with the single-hop?
9. The reference format does not carefully revise.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

We made a report based on your comment.

Please review the attached report.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting study. The weak points are the language. The article requires linguistic and editorial correction.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We made a report based on your comment.

Please review the attached report.

 

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have almost answered my questions except for the following questions.

If wireless communication is applied for reliability, the authors need to focus the simulation on transmitting delay, error rate, packet loss rate, and the time to failure, and QoS but not on energy consumption and throughput. The simulation metric can not provide well evidence for reliability.  

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your kind comments.

We make the second response based on your comment.

Please find the attached file.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The responses in the pages 20 and 21 can not presume me to confirm the proposed method or architecture is reliability. If the real testbed can not easily obtain, authors need to use the simulation tool such as the NS2 to get the reliability results. The current status of this article has a mismatched topic with its content. The topic should be just Energy consumption Analysis instead of performance Analysis.

 

Author Response

Thanks for the kind comments.
We have updated the title and modified our manuscript to accommodate the change according to the reviewer’s comments.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf