Rapid Deployment Method for Multi-Scene UAV Base Stations for Disaster Emergency Communications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. For UAV communications restoration in disaster-affected areas, you assume that people who survive in the disaster-affected area still have their smartphones functioning without any obstacle blocking the signal, am I correct?  Moreover, when disaster strikes any place usually all communication will be down in a way.  Would you elaborate more on what kind of disaster your proposed solution fits the best and could be deployed?  

2. You need to also discuss the power consumption efficiency of drones because it is very crucial to know that as well.  

3. Would you please elaborate more on how you could achieve your second contribution?

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English is okay, but overall, it is a bit difficult to follow, so restructuring might make it easier to read.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper tackles crucial concerns in disaster scenarios. Nevertheless, the manuscript's presentation can be enhanced by considering the following suggestions:

1. The first section needs the introduction of new optimization algorithms, such as Thermal Exchange Optimization, Water Strider Algorithm, etc.

2. Data presentation and text throughout the manuscript use various font types. It is recommended to unify the font types, for instance, in Figure 4, Equation 3, and so on.

3. In Figure 6, please consider using a different color instead of yellow.

Language issues

4. Captions of Figures 7 to 9 should be improved.

5. The paper needs a comprehensive proofread.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript describes an approach to rapid deployment of multiple UAV stations to create a communications network in a disaster-stricken area. The authors proposed two modifications of the algorithms for small and large areas. The advantages of proposed solutions are demonstrated. Overall, the manuscript makes a good impression. However I have several remarks to the text.

1) The Introduction outlines the motivation for the study rather vaguely. Many previous works are listed but their shortcomings are not analyzed. What was missed in previous studies and why is new research needed? The phrase “it is imperative to design a rational emergency communication scheme for disaster scenarios” is too general and is valid for all previous works as well as for this study. So it is recommended to improve the description of motivation and the importance of the results.

2) The phrase about min and max distances (line 180) needs to be rewritten. Apparently, “d_min“ and “d_max“ are now in the wrong places.

3) In the Algorithm 1 on page 8, the Step 2 is unclear (IF operator without THEN). If you mean that all Steps 3-8 should be performed under IF operator, then I recommend to highlight this, for example, with an indentation (as was done in Algorithm 2 on page 10).

4) Algorithm 1 (page 8) and Algorithm 2 (page 10) are incorrectly numbered 2 and 3.

5) The titles of Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are the same.

6) In the Section 3.2 it is unclear what is proposed by the authors and what is part of the existent algorithm.

7) The authors proposed two algorithms for small and large areas. Therefore, I would expect a discussion about which algorithm should be applied in which conditions and about the criteria for choosing what algorithm to apply in a real situation.

8) Line 309. In my opinion, there should be Figure 4 here instead of Figure 3.

Some minor correction of English is required. For example, the sentences starting on lines 52, 73, 76 are incorrect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, congratulations on your interesting research on improving UAV deployment. There are a few changes that I consider you should make :

-there are some sentences that are not correctly written for example at rows 52-53, 76-77.

- rephrase the sentences from rows 115-119

-  algorithm 2 from page 8 and algorithm 3 from page 9 could be more easily understood if there were presented as graphical flowcharts

- increase the dimensions of Fig. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 for a better view of the results

 

 Minor editing of English language required. Some sentences must be rewritten and carefully read, especially in the first section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors presented Rapid deployment method for multi-scene UAV base stations for disaster emergency communications. This study addresses the challenge of quickly deploying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in disaster scenarios where their distribution is random. It introduces a distributed rapid deployment approach for establishing an emergency communication network using UAVs. This method ensures coverage of all designated deployment points while maintaining connectivity, ultimately maximizing the area covered by the emergency communication network. The topic is of significance keeping in view the urgency and authenticity of information during disaster management scenario. However, authors need to consider following points to revise the manuscript as potential publication. 

 

 

The overall study presented in the manuscript is of excellent quality along with precise mathematical modelling. There are some points author’s need to address. 

·      In results and discussion, while author made comparative studies, SGA proves to be working better in comparison to SAIBFGS and almost at par to LAESGA in terms of convergence and accuracy. Authors need to highlight the novelty of the work in the end of the introduction and results to make the manuscript more attractive to researchers.

·      Author presented the efficiency comparison with the existing literature in the end of the abstract. However, in comparative study presented in results, there is no technique being compared which is giving the numbers mentioned in abstract regarding existing techniques. Author needs to correct the data either in abstract or use the technique which is presenting the abstract figures in comparison as well.

·      Manuscript formatting needs to be improved such as equation 3 is not written properly (area defining parameters are not in same font), etc. 

·      Referencing needs to be improved as most number of the cited work is older than 2018.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Kindly provide more information on 

1. For UAV communications restoration in disaster-affected areas, you assume that people who survive in the disaster-affected area still have their smartphones functioning without any obstacle blocking the signal, am I correct?  Moreover, when disaster strikes any place usually all communication will be down in a way.  Would you elaborate more on what kind of disaster your proposed solution fits the best and could be deployed?  You did not really explain this question.

2. You need to also discuss the power consumption efficiency of drones because it is very crucial to know that as well.  You did explain more on that, but would you please show that in usage time such as how many minutes your method would improve the power efficiency?

 

The English is okay.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx