Optimal LAP Altitude for Maximum Coverage

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is rapidly growing because with their inherent attributes (e.g.
flexibility, mobility, and adaptive altitude), these flying platforms admit several key potential applications
in wireless systems. UAVs can operate as aerial base stations to provide enhanced coverage to users with
limited connectivity. Compared to conventional, terrestrial base stations, UAVs have the advantage of
establishing line-of-sight (LOS) communication links to ground users and being able to be deployed almost
anywhere. In particular, cellular base stations and ground communications structure can often be
compromised during natural calamities or disasters. In this scenario, low altitude platforms (LAPs) such as
UAVs can be used to provide a means of communications for both the victims and responders. While this
kind of network provides several benefits and application such as enhanced coverage and efficient
deployment, it also has challenges and issues that need to be addressed: optimal 3D placement, channel
modeling, path planning, security and privacy issues, and resource allocation)
The first paper specified a mathematical model for obtaining the optimum altitude for deploying an aerial
base station that provides maximum radio coverage on the ground. It presented a closed-form formula for
predicting the probability of geometrical LOS between a single LAP and a ground receiver. In this work,
the deterministic coverage range is determined by comparing the average path loss with a specified
threshold. Here, it discussed the preliminaries required for the study including the adopted radio
propagation model, and also, provided the methodology for obtaining the optimum LAP altitude.
The air-to-ground model used occurs in accordance to two main propagation groups: LOS or near-LOS
condition and non-LOS (NLOS) where receivers have no UAV LOS but still receives coverage via strong
reflections and diffractions. Radio signals emitted by the aerial base station propagates in free space until
reaching the urban environment where it incurs additive loss (η) on top of the free space path loss (FSPL).
This additive loss has a Gaussian distribution, but the study only considered the mean value of η.
Moreover, the spatial expectation of path loss (Λ) between an LAP and ground receivers having a common
elevation angle is computed. The paper also provided a model for finding the probability of geometrical
LOS (PLOS) between a terrestrial transmitter and receiver in an urban setting, which is dependent on three
statistical parameters (α, β, γ) defined by ITU. It was shown that for four selected urban environments
(suburban, urban, dense urban, and high-rise urban), the trend of PLOS can be closely approximated to a
simple modified Sigmoid function (S-curve) dependent on the elevation angle (θ) and S-curve parameters
a and b which are linked to parameters α, β, γ. The model showed that the geometrical LOS between an
LAP and a ground receiver can be expressed as a closed form equation based on the elevation angle and
urban statistical parameters.
In analyzing the effect of altitude on the provided service, the service threshold in terms of the maximum
allowable path loss (PLmax) is defined. For ground receivers, this threshold translate to a disk-shaped zone
with radius R. The optimization problem is to find the best altitude that will maximize R. By performing
algebraic reductions by substituting equations for PLOS (as a function of θ), PNLOS, R, FSPL + η into Λ, an
equation for PLmax was derived. The paper demonstrated how to maximize R by manipulating the expression
for PLmax and solving equation ∂R/∂θ = 0.
The paper plotted the relationship of cell radius and altitude, showing the curves for different urban
environments and for different maximum path loss. The optimum altitude that yields the best coverage is
the value of h that satisfies the equation of the critical point ∂R/∂θ = 0 and it can be seen as the point of the
curve where R is at maximum (also, point at which the R-h curve changes its direction). For very low
altitudes, due to shadowing effect, the probability of LOS connections between transmitter and receiver
decreases, and consequently, the coverage radius decreases. On the other hand, at very high altitudes, LOS
links exist with a high probability. However, due to large distance between transmitter and receiver, path
loss increases and coverage performance decreases. Therefore, to find the optimal altitude, the impact of
both distance and LOS probability should be considered simultaneously.
While the paper demonstrated a seemingly accurate model for predicting an optimum altitude for LAPs, it
is important to note that the value of PLmax depends on the sensitivity of the receiver, communication
technology, and the target quality of service. The simulations were also based on the assumption of an
isotropic transmitter (omnidirectional, unity gain transmitter), but in practical applications and for multi-
UAV scenarios, UAVs with directional antenna transmitters with a specified gain and beamwidth are used.
This model is only applicable for single LAP and some modification to the model is needed if multiple
UAVs are deployed, since overlapping coverage areas can create interference.
The plots also showed that some of the computed altitudes exceed the earth’s atmosphere, which may not
be a realistic solution considering that UAVs in used in this context have physical constraints for reaching
a certain altitude and certain regulations provide a limit on flying height of UAVs. Hence, a constraint on
height (h) could have been imposed on the model.
The paper used ITU recommendation document P.1410-2 (04/03) which is superseded by P.1410-5
(02/2012). Future studies should note that parameters and equations used in this paper might be outdated.
Another point that should have been taken into consideration is the effect of small-scale fluctuations caused
by the rapid changes in the propagation environment. This paper presented a model only for urban
environment. It would be better to also characterize industrial, even indoor/quasi-confined areas, and most
especially rural areas since for the Philippine context, use cases of aerial base stations like this one can be
for deployment on calamity-prone areas which mostly on rural (and other non-urban) settings.
Efficient deployment of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles for optimal wireless coverage

This paper investigated the optimal 3D placement of multiple UAVs that use directional antennas, to
maximize coverage area. The goal is to optimally deploy the UAVs in 3D space such that their total
coverage area is maximized while avoiding mutual interference between the UAVs. Given a desired
geographical area which need to be covered, an efficient deployment approach was proposed based on the
circle packing theory that leads to a maximum downlink coverage performance while using the minimum
transmit power. Also, it was also shown that in order to achieve this goal, aside from the altitudes and
location of the UAVs, the number of deployed UAVs and the beamwidth of their antennas can be properly
adjusted.
The paper considered a number of (M) or multiple stationary LAPs (such as quadrotor UAVs). The UAVs
are assumed to be symmetric, having the same transmit power and altitude. For air-to-ground channel
modeling, this work, the common approach of considering both the LOS and non LOS links between the
UAV and ground users separately. Each link has a specific probability of occurrence which depends on the
elevation angle, environment, and relative location of the UAV and users. In computing for the received
signal power, aside from the FSPL, the gain within the sector angle (-θB/2 to θB/2) of the directional antenna
is also considered.
For the deployment of multiple UAVs, this paper presented a theorem that provides the coverage probability
(Pcov) for users located at any arbitrary range r. From this theorem, it is observed that UAV altitude
influences the coverage by affecting the distance between the UAV and users, LOS probability, and the
effective coverage radius (r ≤ h.tan(θB/2). In the presence of interference, the UAVs need to increase their
transmit power to satisfy coverage requirements. Also, for a defined area, increasing the number of UAVs
decreases the distance between them, and consequently, increases the interference from the nearest UAV.
It also discussed the need for the UAVs to maximize coverage lifetime by having the same transmit power
among UAVs. With these requirements put into consideration, the authors formulated an optimization
problem with constraints that ensure no coverage overlap occurs (to avoid interference) and guarantees that
UAVs do not cover outside of the desired area. Hence, the authors exploited the circle-packing problem.
The circle-packing problem demonstrates that increasing the number of UAVs decreases the coverage
radius of each UAV. Therefore, given the radius of the desired area and the number of UAVs, the required
coverage radii (ru) of the UAVs can be determined. The height is adjusted based on the coverage radius and
the antenna beamwidth by using h = ru/tan(θB/2). The authors also derived the upper bound for the altitude
which guarantees the non-overlapping condition between the UAV’s coverage regions.
For simulation, the authors considered, a UAV-based communications over 2GHz carrier frequency (fc = 2
GHz) in an urban environment with parameters given in [13-9]. It showed the total coverage and coverage
lifetime as a function of the number of UAVs (M) and clearly established that by increasing the number of
UAVs, the coverage lifetime increases due to the decrease in the transmit power of each UAV. For a given
area with a radius of 5000 m, a single UAV has a maximum coverage performance, but it should be noted
that it yields a minimum coverage lifetime. Therefore, there is a need to deploy an appropriate number of
UAVs depending on the size of the area, and coverage and coverage lifetime requirements.

It also showed the relationship of UAV altitude and the number of deployed units where the altitude should
be decreased as M increases. Also, for higher number of UAVs, the coverage radius ru should be decreased
by reducing their height according to h = ru/tan(θB/2). Lastly, the authors determined the minimum number
of UAVs to satisfy a certain coverage requirement (ε), i.e. the minimum portion of the given area which
needs to be covered by the UAVs. Based on the simulated parameters (PT = 35 dBm, θB = 80°, h < 5 km),
it was found out that for 1 < M < 7, the 0.7 coverage performance cannot be achieved. In general, as the
size of area increases, more UAVs are needed to satisfy coverage requirements.

Using the packing problem model assumes that the distribution of points of interest (users) within the
desired coverage area is uniform. Given this assumption, a certain UAV which is deployed to an area with
a given radius could serve little or no users while another UAV deployed to a neighboring area with the
same coverage radius might be servicing a lot more users. With this, the first UAV’s resources should better
be allocated somewhere else or the coverage area of the second UAV should be split considering the number
of users it services in order to keep the quality of service from being degraded. Resources like bandwidth
and power should be efficiently allocated and with this, it is better to point out that more resources should
be allocated to locations which contains more users. This won’t be possible using the proposed framework
since the altitude and coverage radius of each UAV need to be different from each other. Exploiting the
packing problem for deployment of UAVs to target regions with shapes other than circle (such as square or
rectangle) is also worth considering.
Again, working with air-to-ground model alone is not enough most especially for emergency-related
scenarios. It is also important to provide wireless coverage to users stuck inside indoor POIs. These users
should typically be modeled with outdoor-to-indoor path loss which takes building blockage and indoor
path loss into calculation. Other parameters such as total bandwidth, minimum data rate, and minimum and
maximum altitude of UAV can also be used in designing a more robust model or 3D deployment algorithm
for aerial base stations.
On the other hand, the authors need to be more consistent with the use of symbols or variables to avoid
confusion (like in the case of specified threshold). Tables and figures also need to specify the variables used
for each axis label to easier relate those values with the equations used in the paper. For example, in Table
I, variable “ru” need to also be indicated in header, “Coverage radius of each UAV (ru)”. The sources of
equations used in the paper need to be stated, like in the case of the inequality used in determining the value
of qm for the upper bound of maximum UAVs.

To support applications, UAVs can serve as drone Base Stations (BSs) in the air. Unlike conventional
ground Base Stations (BSs), drone BSs can help provide wireless network service in cases where the
ground base stations do not exist or have been damaged. Thus, determining how to dynamically deploy
emergency mobile communication infrastructures with limited resource becomes critical.
Since I want to explore ways to efficiently plan and deploy aerial base stations, these papers presented
several means to optimize 3D deployment of UAVs in order to achieve wireless network coverage for a
desired area. These works also helped to identify valid points or considerations when looking for ways to
achieve smart and efficient design or algorithm for UAV deployment. To do this, I want to use a more
accurate/complete model in characterizing air-to-ground propagation where indoor and outdoor users are
both considered and at the same time, explore different approaches (like heuristic/meta-heuristic) to
provide an efficient way to search solution for complex and large scale optimization problems like this
one and to address the limitations I mentioned on the papers that were reviewed.