Securing UAV Communications Via Trajectory
Optimization
Guangchi Zhang∗† , Qingqing Wu† , Miao Cui∗ , and Rui Zhang†
∗ School

of Information Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore
Email: gczhang@gdut.edu.cn, elewuqq@nus.edu.sg, cuimiao@gdut.edu.cn, elezhang@nus.edu.sg

arXiv:1710.04389v1 [] 12 Oct 2017

† Department

Abstract—Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) communications has
drawn significant interest recently due to many advantages
such as low cost, high mobility, and on-demand deployment.
This paper addresses the issue of physical-layer security in a
UAV communication system, where a UAV sends confidential
information to a legitimate receiver in the presence of a potential
eavesdropper which are both on the ground. We aim to maximize
the secrecy rate of the system by jointly optimizing the UAV’s
trajectory and transmit power over a finite horizon. In contrast
to the existing literature on wireless security with static nodes,
we exploit the mobility of the UAV in this paper to enhance the
secrecy rate via a new trajectory design. Although the formulated
problem is non-convex and challenging to solve, we propose an
iterative algorithm to solve the problem efficiently, based on
the block coordinate descent and successive convex optimization
methods. Specifically, the UAV’s transmit power and trajectory
are each optimized with the other fixed in an alternating manner
until convergence. Numerical results show that the proposed
algorithm significantly improves the secrecy rate of the UAV
communication system, as compared to benchmark schemes
without transmit power control or trajectory optimization.

I. I NTRODUCTION
With many advantages such as high mobility, low cost,
and on-demand deployment, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
have been more widely used in both military and civilian applications such as transport, surveillance, search and rescue, etc.
Recently, UAVs have also found increasingly more applications in wireless communications [1], such as mobile coverage
[2]–[6], mobile relaying [7], [8], mobile data collection [9],
[10], etc. In UAV-based wireless communication systems, how
to secure the transmission of confidential information against
intentional or unintentional eavesdropping is an important
problem. In this paper, we focus our study on physical-layer
security, which has been extensively investigated in wireless
communication as a viable anti-eavesdropping technique. The
key design metric in physical-layer security that has been
widely adopted is the so-called secrecy rate (e.g. [11]–[15]),
at which confidential message can be reliably transmitted
without having the eavesdropper infer any information about
the message.
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grand 61571138, the Natural Science Foundation of
Guangdong Province under Grand 2015A030313481, the Science and Technology Plan Project of Guangdong Province under Grands 2016A050503044,
2016KZ010107, 2016B090904001, and 2016B090918031, the Science and
Technology Plan Project of Guangzhou City under Grand 201604020127, and
the scholarship from China Scholarship Council under Grant 201608440436.

A non-zero secrecy rate can be achieved when the strength
of the legitimate link is stronger than that of the eavesdropping link. In the existing literature on PHY layer security,
communication nodes are usually assumed to be at fixed or
quasi-static locations. As a result, the average channel quality
of the legitimate/eavesdropping link mainly depends on the
path loss and shadowing from the transmitter to receiver,
which are predetermined if the locations of the legitimate
transmitter/receiver and the eavesdropper are given. Thus, in
the case that the average channel gain of the legitimate receiver
is smaller than that of the eavesdropper (e.g., due to longer
distance from the legitimate transmitter), in order to achieve
positive secrecy rates, the exploitation of the wireless channel
small-scale fading in time, frequency and/or space becomes
essential, and various techniques such as power control [11],
artificial noise (AN) [12], cooperative jamming [13], as well as
multi-antenna beamforming [14], [15] have been investigated.
However, there are still two major challenges that remain
unsolved in the existing literature. First, the achievable secrecy
rate can be limited if the distance between the legitimate transmitter and its intended receiver is fixed and significantly larger
than that between it and a potential eavesdropper, even if the
techniques mentioned above are applied. Second, the channel
state information (CSI) of the eavesdropper is usually required
at the legitimate transmitter for the implementation of the
above techniques, which is challenging since the eavesdropper
is generally a passive device and it is thus difficult to estimate
its CSI.
In this paper, we study PHY layer security in UAV communications, which may potentially overcome the above two
critical issues in conventional studies. First, in contrast to
the existing literature with fixed or quasi-static nodes, the
mobility of UAV is exploited to proactively establish stronger
legitimate links with the ground nodes and/or degrade the
channels of the eavesdroppers, by flying closer/farther to/from
them, respectively, in its trajectory design. This is because
in the UAV communications, the line-of-sight (LoS) channels
of the UAV-to-ground links are usually much more dominant
over other channel impairments such as shadowing or smallscale fading due to the much larger height of the UAV than the
ground nodes. Furthermore, the UAV can practically obtain the
channel gain to any potential eavesdropper on the ground by
obtaining its location, which thus resolves the eavesdropperCSI issue in the existing literature. Note that the location of

maximize the minimum throughput of all users. In [19], a new
design paradigm that jointly considers both the communication
throughput and the UAV’s flying energy consumption is studied to maximize the energy efficiency of a point-to-point UAVground communication system. Different from these prior
studies, in this paper we apply trajectory optimization and
transmit power control to maximize the secrecy rate of a UAV
wireless communication system.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL

Fig. 1. A UAV wireless communication system consisting of a UAV
transmitter (Alice) above ground, a legitimate receiver (Bob) on the ground,
and an eavesdropper (Eve) on the ground.

any ground node as a potential eavesdropper can be detected
and tracked by the UAV via using an optical camera or
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) equipped on the UAV [16].
For the purpose of exposition, we consider a simplified
system as shown in Fig. 1, where a UAV is deployed to
send confidential information to a legitimate receiver in the
presence of an eavesdropper, while the legitimate receiver and
the eavesdropper are both at fixed positions on the ground. Our
goal is to maximize the average secrecy rate over a finite flight
period of the UAV by jointly designing the UAV trajectory
and transmit power control, subject to the average and peak
transmit power constraints, as well as the practical mobility
constraints on the UAV’s maximum speed and its initial and
final locations. The formulated joint trajectory design and
power control problem for secrecy rate maximization is nonconvex and thus difficult to be solved optimally. To tackle this
challenge, we propose an efficient algorithm by applying the
block coordinate descent and successive convex optimization
methods to find an approximate solution for the formulated
problem. The proposed algorithm divides the design variables
into two blocks, which correspond to UAV transmit power and
trajectory over time, respectively, and updates the two blocks
of variables one at each time with the other fixed alternately
until the algorithm converges. Numerical results show that the
proposed joint design can significantly improve the secrecy
rate of UAV communication system, as compared to benchmark schemes without applying the trajectory optimization or
transmit power control.
It is worth noting that there have been prior works (e.g. [7],
[17]–[19]) on trajectory optimization for various UAV communication systems, which consider different system setups and
performance metrics. In [7], a UAV-enabled mobile relaying
system is investigated, where the UAV trajectory and transmit
power are jointly designed to maximize the throughput. In
[17], the UAV flying heading is optimized to maximize the
achievable sum rate from ground nodes to a UAV by assuming
a constant flying speed. In [18], a UAV-enabled base station
system serving multiple ground users is investigated, where the
UAV trajectory and user scheduling are jointly optimized to

As shown in Fig. 1, we consider a wireless communication
system where a UAV (Alice) transmits information to a legitimate receiver (Bob) in the presence of a passive eavesdropper
(Eve). We assume that Bob and Eve are both on the ground and
have fixed locations, with a distance of L meters (m) between
them.
Without loss of generality, we consider a three-dimensional
(3D) Cartesian coordinate system with Bob and Eve located at
(0, 0, 0) and (L, 0, 0), respectively. For simplicity, we ignore
the take-off and landing phases of Alice, and focus on its
operation period over a finite duration T . It is assumed that
Alice flies at a fixed altitude H above ground, which can
be considered as the minimum altitude required for building
avoidance. The time-varying coordinate of Alice can be denoted as (x(t), y(t), H), 0 ≤ t ≤ T . For convenience, we
divide the period T into N time slots with equal length, i.e.,
T = N dt , with dt denoting the length of a time slot, which is
sufficiently small such that Alice’s location can be regarded as
constant within each time slot. As a result, Alice’s coordinate
in time slot n can be denoted as (x[n], y[n], H). Thus, Alice’s
horizontal trajectory (x(t), y(t)) over the flight period T can
be approximated by the sequence {x[n], y[n]}N
n=1 . Denote the
maximum speed of Alice as vmax > 0. The maximum flying
distance of Alice in each time slot is thus V = vmax dt . The
initial and final locations of Alice are denoted by (x0 , y0 , H)
and (xF , yF , H), respectively, which are given based on the
specific mission of Alice. As a result, the mobility constraints
of Alice can be expressed as
(x[1] − x0 )2 + (y[1] − y0 )2 ≤ V 2 ,

(1a)

2

2

2

(x[n + 1] − x[n]) + (y[n + 1] − y[n]) ≤ V ,
n = 1, . . . , N − 1,
2

(1b)
2

2

(xF − x[N ]) + (yF − y[N ]) ≤ V .

(1c)

We assume the channel from Alice to Bob and that from
Alice to Eve are dominated by LoS links. Thus the channel
power gain from Alice to Bob at time slot n follows the freespace path loss model given by
gAB [n] = β0 d−2
AB [n] =

β0
,
x2 [n] + y 2 [n] + H 2

(2)

where β0 denotes the channel power gain at the reference
distance d0 = 1m, which depends on the carrier frequency
and the antenna
gains of the transmitter and receiver, and
p
dAB [n] = x2 [n] + y 2 [n] + H 2 is the distance from Alice
to Bob at time slot n. Denote P [n] as the transmit power of

Alice at time slot n, which is constrained by both average and
peak power limits, denoted by P̄ and Ppeak , respectively. The
transmit power constraints of Alice can be expressed as
N
1 X
P [n] ≤ P̄ ,
N n=1

0 ≤ P [n] ≤ Ppeak , ∀n.

(3a)
(3b)

To make the constraints above non-trivial, we assume P̄ <
Ppeak in this paper. Without the presence of Eve, the achievable
rate from Alice to Bob in bits/sec/Hertz (bps/Hz) at time slot
n can be expressed as


P [n]gAB [n]
RAB [n] = log2 1 +
σ2


(4)
γ0 P [n]
,
= log2 1 + 2
x [n] + y 2 [n] + H 2
where σ 2 is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) power
at the Bob receiver and γ0 = β0 /σ 2 is the reference signalto-noise ratio (SNR). Similarly, the achievable rate from Alice
to Eve in bps/Hz at time slot n is given by


γ0 P [n]
RAE [n] = log2 1 +
.
(5)
(x[n] − L)2 + y 2 [n] + H 2
With (4) and (5), the average secrecy rate from Alice to Bob
in bps/Hz over N time slots is given by [11]
Rsec =

N
1 X
+
[RAB [n] − RAE [n]] ,
N n=1

(6)

where [x]+ , max(x, 0).
Our objective is to maximize the average secrecy rate
Rsec given in (6) subject to Alice’s mobility constraints
in (1) and the average and peak power constraints in (3).
The optimization variables include the transmit power over
†
slots P , [P [1], . . . , P [N ]] and Alice’s trajectory in terms
of its x and y axis position coordinates in different slots
†
†
x , [x[1], . . . , x[N ]] and y , [y[1], . . . , y[N ]] , respectively,
where the superscript † denotes the transpose operation. Thus,
we formulate the secrecy rate maximization problem as (by
ignoring the constant term 1/N in (6))


N 
X
γ0 P [n]
(P1) : max
log2 1 + 2
x,y,P
x [n] + y 2 [n] + H 2
n=1
 +

γ0 P [n]
(7)
− log2 1 +
(x[n] − L)2 + y 2 [n] + H 2
s.t. (1), (3).
Problem (P1) is difficult to be solved optimally due to the
following two reasons. First, the operator [·]+ makes the
objective function non-smooth at point zero. Second, even
without [·]+ , the objective function is still non-concave with
respect to either x, y, or P in general. As a result, it is
challenging to find the optimal solution to (P1) efficiently.
Thus, we propose an iterative algorithm to solve it in the next
section.

III. P ROPOSED A LGORITHM

FOR

P ROBLEM (P1)

It can be shown that problem (P1) can be transformed into
the following problem equivalently, i.e.,


N
X
γ0 P [n]
log2 1 + 2
(P2) : max
x,y,P
x [n] + y 2 [n] + H 2
n=1


γ0 P [n]
− log2 1 +
(8)
(x[n] − L)2 + y 2 [n] + H 2
s.t. (1), (3).
Problems (P1) and (P2) have the same optimal solution due to
the fact that the value of each summation term in the objective
function of both problems, i.e., RAB [n] − RAE [n], ∀n, must
be non-negative at optimality. This is because if RAB [n] −
RAE [n] < 0 for any n, we can always increase its value in the
objective to zero by setting P [n] = 0 without violating the
power constraints (3).
Although problem (P2) resolves the non-smooth issue, it
is still non-convex and difficult to solve. Based on the block
coordinate descent method, we propose an iterative algorithm
to solve (P2). Specifically, the optimization variables are
partitioned into two blocks., i.e., P for transmit power control
and (x, y) for UAV trajectory design. As a result, problem (P2)
are divided into two subproblems: one (denoted by subproblem
1) optimizes the transmit power P under given trajectory
(x, y); while the other (denoted by subproblem 2) optimizes
the trajectory (x, y) under given transmit power P. These two
subproblems are solved in an alternating manner iteratively
until the algorithm converges. The details of the proposed
algorithm are given as follow.
A. Subproblem 1: Optimizing Transmit Power For Given Trajectory
Let

γ0
,
+ y 2 [n] + H 2
γ0
bn =
.
2
(x[n] − L) + y 2 [n] + H 2
an =

(9)

x2 [n]

(10)

Subproblem 1 can be accordingly expressed as
max
P

N
X

ln (1 + an P [n]) − ln (1 + bn P [n])

(11)

n=1

s.t. (3),

where the property log2 x = ln x/ ln 2 is used. Although (11)
is a non-convex optimization problem, it has been shown in
[11] that the optimal solution can be obtained as


(
+
min
[
P̂
[n]]
,
P
an > b n ,
peak
P ∗ [n] =
(12)
0
an ≤ b n ,
where
P̂ [n] =

s

1
1
−
2bn
2an

2

+

1
λ



1
1
−
bn
an



−

1
1
−
.
2bn 2an
(13)

In the above, λ ≥ P
0 is a constant that ensures the average
N
power constraint N1 n=1 P [n] ≤ P̄ to be satisfied when the
optimal solution of problem (11) is attained, which can be
found efficiently via bisection search [20].
B. Subproblem 2: Optimizing Trajectory For Given Transmit
Power
Let Pn = γ0 P [n]. Subproblem 2 can be equivalently
expressed as


N 
X
Pn
ln 1 + 2
max
x,y
x [n] + y 2 [n] + H 2
n=1


Pn
− ln 1 +
(14)
(x[n] − L)2 + y 2 [n] + H 2
s.t. (1).
Note that the objective function of problem (14) is nonconcave with respect to x and y, so it cannot be solved
†
efficiently. By introducing slack variables t = [t[1], . . . , t[N ]]
†
and u = [u[1], . . . , u[N ]] , we formulate the following problem




N 
X
Pn
Pn
− ln 1 +
(15a)
ln 1 +
max
x,y,t,u
u[n]
t[n]
n=1
2

2

2

2

s.t. t[n] − x [n] + 2Lx[n] − L − y [n] − H ≤ 0, ∀n
(15b)
t[n] ≥ 0, ∀n,
(15c)
x2 [n] + y 2 [n] + H 2 − u[n] ≤ 0, ∀n,

(15d)

(1).
It can be verified that with the optimal solution of problem
(15), constraints (15b) and (15d) should hold with equalities
since otherwise, t[n] (u[n]) can be increased (decreased) to
improve the objective value. Therefore, problems (14) and (15)
have the same optimal solution of (x, y). Next, we focus on
solving problem
 (15). 
Pn
The term ln 1 + u[n]
in (15a) and the terms −x2 [n] and
2
−y [n] in (15b) make problem (15) non-convex and difficult
to be solved optimally. Based on the successive convex optimization method, we propose the following algorithm for
problem (15) to obtain an approximate solution. The algorithm
assumes a given initial point xfea , [xfea [1], . . . , xfea [N ]]† ,
yfea , [yfea [1], . . . , yfea [N ]]† and ufea , [ufea [1], . . . , ufea [N ]]† ,
which is feasible
to (15).


Pn
Since ln 1 + u[n] is a convex function of u[n], its firstorder Taylor expansion at ufea [n] is a global under-estimator,
i.e.,




Pn
Pn
Pn (u[n] − ufea [n])
ln 1 +
≥ ln 1 +
− 2
.
u[n]
ufea [n]
ufea [n] + Pn ufea [n]
(16)
Since −x2 [n] and −y 2 [n] are concave functions, their firstorder Taylor expansions at xfea [n] and yfea [n] are global overestimators, i.e.,
− x2 [n] ≤ x2fea [n] − 2xfea [n]x[n],

(17)

2
− y 2 [n] ≤ yfea
[n] − 2yfea [n]y[n].

(18)

With (16)–(18), problem (15) is recast as


N 
X
Pn
Pn u[n]
(19a)
− ln 1 +
− 2
max
x,y,t,u
ufea [n] + Pn ufea [n]
t[n]
n=1
s.t. t[n] + x2fea [n] − 2xfea [n]x[n] + 2Lx[n] − L2
2
+ yfea
[n] − 2yfea [n]y[n] − H 2 ≤ 0, ∀n,
(1), (15c), (15d).

(19b)

Since the objective function of problem (19) is concave, and
the feasible region is convex, it is a convex optimization
problem, which can be efficiently solved by the interiorpoint method [20]. Since the first constraint of problem (19)
implies that of problem (15), the solution of problem (19)
is guaranteed to be a feasible solution of problem (15).
Moreover, since problem (19) maximizes the lower bound of
the objective function of problem (15), and the lower bound
and the objective function of (15) are equal only at the given
point (xfea , yfea , ufea ), the objective value of problem (15) with
the solution obtained by solving problem (19) is no smaller
than that with the given point (xfea , yfea , ufea ).
C. Overall Algorithm
In summary, the proposed algorithm solves the two subproblems (11) and (19) alternately in an iterative manner.
Since the objective value of (P2) with the solutions obtained
by solving the subproblems is non-decreasing over iteration,
and the optimal value of (P2) is finite, the solution by the
proposed algorithm is guaranteed to converge. The details of
the proposed algorithm are summarized in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 Proposed Algorithm for Problem (P1).
1: Initialization:
Set an initial feasible solution
(P(0) , x(0) , y(0) ), an initial slack variable u(0) and
k = 0.
2: repeat
3:
Set k ← k + 1;
4:
With given P(k−1) , set the feasible points xfea =
x(k−1) , yfea = y(k−1) and ufea = u(k−1) , then update
the trajectory variable (x(k) , y(k) ) and the slack variable
u(k) by solving problem (19);
5:
With given (x(k) , y(k) ), update the transmit power
control variable P(k) by using (12).
6: until The fractional increase of the objective value is
below a small threshold ǫ.
IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, we provide numerical results to verify the
performance of our proposed joint trajectory optimization and
power control algorithm (denoted as “TO w/ PC”), as compared to the following two benchmark algorithms: trajectory
optimization without power control “TO w/o PC” and linesegment trajectory with optimal power control “line w/ PC”.
In the “TO w/o PC” algorithm, transmit power is equally

200

1.2
Line w/ PC
TO w/o PC
TO w/ PC

150
1
100

Secrecy Rate (bps/Hz)

T=200s

50

y (m)

T=210s
0

-50

0.8

0.6

0.4

T=250s
-100
0.2
-150

Line w/ PC
TO w/o PC
TO w/ PC

-200
-50

0

50

100

150

0
200

200

250

300

350

x (m)

Fig. 2. Trajectories of Alice using different algorithms.

450

500

Fig. 3. Secrecy rate versus flight time T .

1.8
T=400s

1.6

1.4
T=250s

Secrecy Rate (bps/Hz)

allocated to time slots as P [n] = P̄ , ∀n, and the UAV
trajectory is optimized by solving problem (19) iteratively until
convergence. In the “line w/ PC” algorithm, Alice flies to the
point above Bob at the maximum speed, then remains at that
point, and finally flies at the maximum speed in order to reach
its final location by the end of the last time slot. If Alice does
not have enough time to reach Bob, it will turn at a certain
midway point and then fly to the final location at the maximum
speed. Thus, the trajectory by this algorithm constitutes only
line segments. Given this trajectory, optimal power control is
implemented based on (12).
The distance between Bob and Eve is set as L = 200m,
and the flying altitude is set to H = 100m. The coordinates
of Alice’s initial and final locations are set as (x0 , y0 ) =
(100, 200)m and (xF , yF ) = (100, −200)m. The communication bandwidth is 20MHz with the carrier frequency at
5GHz, and the noise power spectrum density is −169dBm/Hz.
Thus, the reference SNR at the reference distance d0 = 1m
is γ0 = 80dB. The maximum speed of Alice is vmax = 2m/s.
The flight time T is divided into multiple time slots with equal
length, and the length of each time slot is set as dt = 0.5s.
The average power limit is set to P̄ = −5dBm, and the
peak transmit power limit is Ppeak = 4P̄ . The threshold ǫ
in Algorithm 1 is set as 10−4 .
Fig. 2 shows the trajectories of UAV/Alice using different
algorithms with different values of T . The locations of Bob,
Eve, Alice’s initial and final locations are marked with , △,
×, and +, respectively. It is observed that when T = 200s, it
is just enough for Alice to fly from the initial location to the
final location in a straight line at the maximum speed, so the
trajectories of the “TO w/ PC”, “TO w/o PC” and “line w/ PC”
algorithms are identical. The trajectories of the “TO w/ PC”
and “TO w/o PC” algorithms are similar for different values
of T , i.e., Alice tries to fly as close as possible to Bob and
at the same time as away as possible to Eve as T increases.
When T is sufficiently large, i.e. T = 250s, Alice first flies at

400

T (s)

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4
T=210s

0.2

Line w/ PC
TO w/o PC
TO w/ PC

0
-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

P̄ (dBm)

Fig. 4. Secrecy rate versus average transmit power P̄ .

the maximum speed to reach a certain location (not directly
above Bob), then remains stationary at this location as long as
possible, and finally flies to the final location at the maximum
speed and reach there by the end of the last time slot. The
hovering locations can be shown to be the best locations for
maximizing the secrecy rates for the two algorithms with and
without power control, respectively.
Fig. 3 shows the average secrecy rates of different algorithms versus flight time T . It is observed that the secrecy
rates of all algorithms increase with T . This is because for
all algorithms the maximum secrecy rate is achieved at the
respective hovering locations (see Fig. 2), and larger T results
in longer hovering time. The proposed “TO w/ PC” algorithm
always achieves the highest secrecy rate, compared to the other
two benchmark algorithms.
Fig. 4 shows the average secrecy rates of different algorithms versus the average transmit power P̄ with different
values of T . It is observed that the proposed “TO w/ PC”

algorithm always achieves the best secrecy rate. The “line w/
PC” algorithm achieves a secrecy rate performance close to
the “TO w/ PC” algorithm, and significantly outperforms the
“TO w/o PC” algorithm when P̄ ≤ −5dB. This is because
power control is more effective in improving secrecy rate than
trajectory optimization when the average transmit power is
low. It is observed that when P̄ increases, the secrecy rate
of the “TO w/o PC” algorithm exceeds that of the “line w/
PC” algorithm, and gets closer to that of the “TO w/ PC”
algorithm. The rate gap between the “line w/ PC” and “TO
w/o PC” algorithms becomes larger with increasing P̄ . This is
because trajectory optimization is more effective in improving
secrecy rate than power control when the average transmit
power is sufficiently large. The above results demonstrate the
importance and necessity of the joint trajectory optimization
and transmit power control in maximizing the secrecy rate.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we study the physical-layer secrecy communication in a new UAV-to-ground communication setup by
exploiting the UAV trajectory design in addition to the conventional power/rate adaptation. The transmit power control and
UAV trajectory are jointly designed to maximize the average
secrecy rate over a finite horizon, subject to the average and
peak transmit power constraints as well as practical UAV’s
mobility constraints. By applying the block coordinate descent
and successive convex optimization methods, we propose an
efficient iterative algorithm to solve this design problem.
Numerical results show that the new approach of proactively
controlling channel gains by adjusting the UAV trajectory with
joint power control can significantly improve the physicallayer security performance of UAV communication systems.
R EFERENCES
[1] Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, and T. J. Lim, “Wireless communications with
unmanned aerial vehicles: opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 36-42, May 2016.
[2] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Drone small cells
in the clouds: design, deployment and performance analysis,” in Proc.
IEEE GLOBECOM, Dec. 2015, pp. 1-6.
[3] R. I. Bor-Yaliniz, A. El-Keyi, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Efficient 3-D
placement of an aerial base station in next generation cellular networks,”
in Proc. IEEE ICC, 2016, pp. 1-5.
[4] J. Lyu, Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, and T. J. Lim, “Placement optimization of
UAV-mounted mobile base stations,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 21, no.
3, pp. 604-607, Mar. 2017.
[5] Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Delay-constrained throughput maximization in
UAV-enabled OFDM systems,” to appear in IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications (APCC), Dec. 2017.
[6] Q. Wu, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang, “Joint trajectory and communication
design for UAV-enabled multiple access,” to appear in IEEE Global
Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Dec. 2017.
[7] Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, and T. J. Lim, “Throughput maximization for UAVenabled mobile relaying systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no.
12, pp. 4983-4996, Dec. 2016.
[8] T. A. Johansen, A. Zolich, T. Hansen, and A. J. Sorensen, “Unmanned
aerial vehicle as communication relay for autonomous underwater vehicle
– field tests,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom Commun. Conf. Workshops, Dec.
2014, pp. 1469-1474.
[9] S. Sotheara, K. Aso, N. Aomi, and S. Shimamoto, “Effective data
gathering and energy efficient communication protocol in wireless sensor
networks employing UAV,” in Proc. IEEE WCNC, 2014, pp. 2342-2347.

[10] J. Lyu, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang, “Cyclical multiple access in UAV-aided
communications: a throughput-delay tradeoff,” IEEE Wireless Commun.
Lett., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 600-603, Dec. 2016.
[11] P. K. Gopala, L. Lai, and H. E. Gamal, “On the secrecy capacity of
fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 46874698, Oct. 2008.
[12] S. Goel and R. Negi, “Guaranteeing secrecy using artificial noise,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2180-2189, Jun. 2008.
[13] G. Zheng, I. Krikidis, J. Li, A. P. Petropulu, and B. Ottersten, “Improving
physical layer secrecy using full-duplex jamming receivers,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 61, no. 20, pp. 4962-4974, Oct. 2013.
[14] Q. Li, Y. Yang, W. K. Ma, M. Lin, J. Ge, and J. Lin, “Robust cooperative
beamforming and artificial noise design for physical-layer secrecy in AF
multi-antenna multi-relay networks,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol.
63, no. 1, pp. 206-220, Jan. 2015.
[15] G. Zhang, X. Li, M. Cui, G. Li, and L. Yang, “Signal and artificial noise
beamforming for secure simultaneous wireless information and power
transfer multiple-input multiple-output relaying systems,” IET Commun.,
vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 796-804, 2016.
[16] M. Caris, et al., “mm-Wave SAR demonstrator as a test bed for advanced
solutions in microwave imaging,” IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag., vol.
29, no. 7, pp. 8-15, Jul. 2014.
[17] F. Jiang and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Optimization of UAV heading for the
ground-to-air uplink,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 30, no. 5, pp.
993-1005, Jun. 2012.
[18] Q. Wu, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang, “Joint trajectory and communication
design for multi-UAV enabled wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., submitted, 2017. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.02723.
[19] Y. Zeng and R. Zhang, “Energy-efficient UAV communication with
trajectory optimization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 6,
pp. 3747-3760, Jun. 2017.
[20] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

