Uplink Performance Analysis of a Drone Cell in a
Random Field of Ground Interferers
Mohammad Mahdi Azari1 , Fernando Rosas2,3, Alessandro Chiumento1 , Amir Ligata4, Sofie Pollin1
1 Department

arXiv:1711.01351v1 [cs.NI] 3 Nov 2017

2

of Electrical Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium
Centre of Complexity Science and Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, UK
3 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, UK
4 Motive Customer Experience Solutions, Applications & Analytics, Nokia, Belgium
Email: mahdi.azari@kuleuven.be

Abstract—Aerial base stations are a promising technology
to increase the capabilities of the existing communication
networks. However, the existing analytical frameworks do not
sufficiently characterize the impact of ground interferers on the
aerial base stations. In order to address this issue, we model
the effect of interference coming from the coexisting ground
networks on the aerial link, which could be the uplink of an
aerial cell served by a drone base station. By considering a
Poisson field of ground interferers, we characterize the aggregate interference experienced by the drone. This result includes
the effect of the drone antenna pattern, the height-dependent
shadowing, and various types of environment. We show that the
benefits that a drone obtains from a better line-of-sight (LoS)
at high altitudes is counteracted by a high vulnerability to the
interference coming from the ground. However, by deriving
the link coverage probability and transmission rate we show
that a drone base station is still a promising technology if the
overall system is properly dimensioned according to the given
density and transmission power of the interferers. Particularly,
our results illustrate how the benefits of such network is
maximized by defining the optimal drone altitude and signalto-interference (SIR) requirement.
Index Terms—Drone cell, aggregate interference, ground-toair communication, coverage probability, Poisson point process
(PPP)

I. I NTRODUCTION
Aerial communication platforms are currently receiving a
lot of attention from the academic and industrial communities as potential solutions for enhancing the performance
of ground-based networks. Significant research efforts are
being spent in exploring the benefits of aerial communication
platforms in fields such as public safety, traffic offloading,
disaster relief services and wireless access provision. Google
Loon [1] and Facebook Aquila Drone [2], for instance, aim
to bring broadband wireless connectivity to remote areas by
employing high altitude platforms. The use of low altitude
LTE-A aerial base stations for public safety and capacity
enhancement is considered in the ABSOLUTE project [3].
Recent reports indicated that the use of drone base stations
in low altitudes provides significant performance improvements compared to terrestrial base stations [4]. These advantages are in large part due to the high probability of line-ofsight (LoS) communication between a ground terminal and

a drone. Moreover, the introduction of additional degrees
of freedom enabling the operation of a drone at optimal
altitude logically results in a performance that is at least
as good as a base station at a fixed altitude. As a matter
of fact, if the drone operates at a high altitude then the
propagation distance to ground devices is large, increasing
the path loss. However, a higher altitude leads to higher
LoS probability, which in conjunction with the increased
path loss generates a critical trade-off for drone deployment.
In [4], we have shown that this can be formalized as an
optimization problem, with a unique optimal altitude for
minimum transmission power. Moreover in [4] we have
shown that, although the drone base station requires lower
transmission power than a terrestrial base station for a fixed
coverage region, it can provide higher sum-rate capacity at
a wide range of altitudes.
An undesirable consequence of the favorable propagation
conditions, which has been overlooked in most of the
existing literature, is that the higher LoS probability at high
altitudes can also make the drone more vulnerable to the
interference coming from neighboring networks [5], [6].
It is plausible that this feature could severely degrade the
performance benefits of aerial base stations. Therefore, a
critical challenge for the future of this technology is to
provide a clear characterization of the effect of interference
on the network performance. Please note that the existing
model-based literature either ignores interference [7], [8] or
focuses only on the downlink drone cell communications
[9]. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, the effect of
interference at the drone base station, and its relationship
with network parameters such as transmission power and
altitude, is still an open question.
In order to address this issue, our approach is to leverage
the existing knowledge about interference characterization
in ground-to-ground links [10]–[12], and extend this to
consider the ground-to-air case for low altitude drone base
stations in urban areas. One key difference with the former
is that the statistical properties of the received interference
are intrinsically linked to the environment-dependent LoS
probability and shadowing which vary with the drone alti-

tude and elevation angle [13]. Such characterization provides
a realistic insight into the height-dependent performance of
a drone cell coexisting with ground cells and enables comparison of results for different environments with different
models for both interference and link quality.
Concretely, in this paper we consider an uplink communication network between ground terminals and a drone base
station. We provide a novel characterization of the aggregate
interference seen by the drone utilizing a directional antenna
in the presence of Poisson field of ground interferers. Our
results show that the drone is heavily vulnerable to the terrestrial interference due to the high probability of LoS, where
areas with many tall obstacles experience less interference.
Furthermore, we derive the link coverage probability and
transmission rate. Then, we study the maximum performance
of the network by optimizing the system parameters such as
the drone altitude and signal-to-interference (SIR) requirement. Contrasting with previous works, these results show
that including the impact of interference leads to a higher
performance for denser environments at high altitudes.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
presents the network model, and then Section III analyzes
the aggregate interference. The coverage probability and
transmission rate is derived and investigated in Section IV.
Our conclusion is finally presented in Section V.
II. N ETWORK M ODEL
We consider an uplink wireless communication system
where a drone acting as an aerial base station is located
at altitude h as illustrated in Figure 1. A ground terminal
communicates with the drone in the presence of a random
field of interferers distributed according to a Poisson point
process (PPP) of a fixed density λ. It is to be noted that
the density of the interfering terminals λ can be affected by
various system parameters including the number of available
channels, the user association criterion and MAC protocol.
The specific scenarios considered could represent an aerial
base station that coexists with a terrestrial network, using
the same band. All active transmitters on the ground, hence,
create interference to the aerial cell.
An arbitrary ground user equipment (UE) is located at
a distance d from the drone and r represents the distance
between the UE and the projection of the drone on the
ground surface O. The UE forms an angle of ϕ with
the drone which is the complement of the elevation angle
(see Figure 1). We assume that the UE employs an omnidirectional antenna for communication, while the drone is
equipped with a directional antenna with beamwidth ϕA
pointing directly downwards. The ground region covered by
the main lobe of the drone antenna forms a disc centered at
O, being denoted as C. It is important to note that a UE can
be either a source of information or interference.
For the channel model between the UE and the drone,
as in [13], we consider LoS and non-LoS (NLoS) links
separately characterized by their respective probability of

Drone
ϕA
2

ϕ

h

d

r
O

C

UE

Fig. 1. A typical uplink communication network between a UE and
a drone in the presence of random field of ground interferers. The
drone utilizes a directional antenna which has the beamwidth of
ϕA .

occurrence. The received power from LoS and NLoS links
are given by [13]
Pr =

Pt
;
Lf Ψ ξ

ξ ∈ {LoS, NLoS}, t ∈ {I, U}

(1)

where Pt is the transmit power such that PI and PU correspond to the source of interference and information respectively, Lf is the free-space path loss given by
2
2


h2
4πf
4πf d
= Af
, (2)
;
A
=
Lf =
f
c
cos2 (ϕ)
c
f is the operating frequency and c speed of light. In (1), ΨLoS
and ΨNLoS capture the corresponding excessive path loss and
shadowing effect, and follow a log-normal distribution which
can be represented as
10 log10 Ψξ ∼ N (µξ , σξ2 );

ξ ∈ {LoS, NLoS}

(3)

In the above equation, µLoS and µNLoS are dependent on
f and the type of environment (suburban, urban etc.).
Furthermore, σLoS and σNLoS are a function of ϕ as
σξ = aξ ebξ ϕ ;

ξ ∈ {LoS, NLoS}

(4)

where aLoS , bLoS , aNLoS , and bNLoS denote frequency and
environment dependent parameters obtained in [13].
The probability of an LoS link between a UE and the
drone can be expressed as [13]

β2
5π
,
(5)
−ϕ
PLoS (ϕ) = β1
12
where β1 and β2 are frequency and environment dependent
parameters and ϕ is in radians. Moreover, the probability of
NLoS is equal to PNLoS (ϕ) = 1 − PLoS (ϕ). We note that
from (5), PLoS (ϕ) decreases as ϕ increases.
Following, we first investigate and characterize the aggregate interference from ground terminals. Then, we use
this result to study the quality of the uplink communication
between an arbitrary UE and the drone base station.

III. AGGREGATE I NTERFERENCE M ODEL

ln(10)
10 .

and v =

Here, we statistically characterize the aggregate interference seen by the drone from the ground terminals (i.e. UEs).
To this end, we consider I as a set of interferers within C,
which is a random set depending on the point process. Pr,i
is the received power from the ith intereferer (UE). Hence,
the aggregate interference can be written as
X
Iagg =
Pr,i .
(6)

Proof. Assuming that K, Φ and Ψ are random variables
denoting, respectively, the number, location and channel
statistic of the interferers, one can write
#
"K
X
Pr,i
µIagg = EK,Φ,Ψ

Note that in (6), the contribution of interfering terminals
located outside of C is not taken into account due to their
small impact. In fact, there are three main reasons why
these interferers can be neglected compared to the interferers
within C: (I) the probability of LoS, i.e. PLoS (ϕ), for the
nodes outside of C is lower, (II) the link length d is larger
(resulting in a larger path loss), and (III) the antenna gain is
much lower. We hence eliminate the impact of these nodes
to simplify the derivations [14]. Moreover, without loss of
generality we assume that the gain of the antenna within
the main lobe is equal to one to avoid the introduction of
another parameter.
The aggregate interference Iagg in (6) is a stochastic process whose distribution depends on the number and location
of the interferers as captured by the point process, the
statistics of each interfering signal and the signal propagation
model. To the best of our knowledge, there is no known
closed form expression for the probability distribution function (pdf) of the aggregate interference for the network
model introduced in Section II. However, we characterize
the mean and variance of Iagg and their dependency on
h, λ and ϕA in Section III-A. The results show that the
variance compared to the mean is small. For this reason,
and for simplicity and tractability, in this paper we employ
the mean aggregate interference instead of the actual random
value. The network performance simulation using the actual
aggregate interference in Section IV-C confirms that the
mean aggregate interference is a good approximation of the
aggregate interference for the performance analysis.

The received interfering powers Pr,i are identical and assumed to be independent random variables (i.i.d.) with a
same distribution denoted as Pr . Therefore, one can rewrite
(8) as

= EK

i∈I

A. Aggregate Interference: Mean and Variance
Here, we statistically characterize the aggregate interference from the ground terminals. The mean value of
the aggregate interference µIagg = E[Iagg ] is given by the
following theorem.
Theorem 1. The mean aggregate interference µIagg is given
by
2πλPI
· Υµ (ϕA )
(7)
µIagg =
Af
where PI is the transmit power of the interfering nodes,
" 
β2
Z ϕ2A
2 (ϕ)/2
−µLoS +vσLoS
5π
10
10
−ϕ
Υµ (ϕA ) =
tan(ϕ) β1
12
0
#

β2 !
2
−µNLoS +vσNLoS
(ϕ)/2
5π
10
10
−ϕ
+ 1 − β1
dϕ,
12

"

i=1
k
X

EΦ,Ψ [Pr,i ]

i=1

!

#

K =k .

µIagg = EK [k · EΦ,Ψ [Pr ]]

= EK [k] · EΦ,Ψ [Pr ] = λ|C| · EΦ,Ψ [Pr ],

(8)

(9)

where we take into account the fact that K follows a Poisson
distribution with the mean value equal to λ|C| [15]. To
evaluate the expectation over Pr in (9), one can write
Z ϕ2A
EΦ,Ψ [Pr ] =
EΨ [Pr |Φ = ϕ] fΦ (ϕ) dϕ
0

2πh2
=
|C|

Z

ϕA
2

0

sin(ϕ)
EΨ [Pr |Φ = ϕ] dϕ
cos3 (ϕ)

(10)

where fΦ (ϕ) is the pdf of Φ. We also took into account a
uniform distribution of an arbitrary interferer over C which
implies
πr2
FΦ (ϕ) , P[Φ ≤ ϕ] =
|C|

and hence by using r = h tan(ϕ) one obtains
fΦ (ϕ) =
Now, we notice that

2πh2 sin(ϕ)
∂
FΦ (ϕ) =
.
∂ϕ
|C| cos3 (ϕ)

EΨ [Pr |Φ = ϕ] = EΨ [Pr |Φ = ϕ, LoS] · PLoS (ϕ)
+ EΨ [Pr |Φ = ϕ, NLoS] · PNLoS (ϕ).

(11)

To calculate (11), one finds
EΨ [Pr |Φ = ϕ, LoS] = EΨ






PI
1
PI
= EΨ
.
Lf ΨLoS
Lf
ΨLoS
(12)

From (3), we can write
N (−µLoS ,σLoS )
1
10
∼ 10
.
ΨLoS
2

Thus


1
2
;
∼ N −vµLoS , v 2 σLoS
ln
ΨLoS


v=

ln(10)
10

which means that Ψ1LoS follows a log-normal distribution with
2
parameters −vµLoS and v 2 σLoS
. Therefore, one obtains [16]


2
2
2 /2
v σLoS
−µLoS +vσLoS
1
10
= e−vµLoS + 2 = 10
.
(13)
EΨ
ΨLoS

-90

1

-95

0.9
0.8

-100

λ = 10−5

λ = 5 × 10−5

0.7

-105

0.6

FIagg (x)

µIagg [dB]

λ = 5 × 10−6

-110
-115

0.5
0.4

-120

0.3

-125

Suburban
Urban
Dense Urban
Highrise Urban

-130

0.2

-135
0

20

40

60

80

100

h = 500 m
h = 750 m
h = 1000 m

0.1
0
-100

120

Antenna Beamwidth, ϕA [o ]

-95

-90

-85

x [dB]

Fig. 2. The mean aggregate interference µIagg increases with drone
antenna beamwidth ϕA , yet the rate of increase slows down for
larger antenna beanwidths. Furthermore, the aggregate interference
is lower for denser areas.

Fig. 3. The aggregate interference Iagg converges to its mean µIagg
as h or λ increases.

1.6

Similarly, one can write

EΨ



1
ΨNLoS



= 10

2
−µNLoS +vσNLoS
/2
10

.

(14)

(15)

Therefore, using (2), (5) and (9)–(15), we obtain (7).
We note that the mean value µIagg in (7) is independent
of the drone altitude h. In fact, for a given ϕA as the drone
goes higher, the received power from an interferer decreases
proportional to h2 due to path loss. However, at the same
time the average number of interferers within C, which is
λ|C|, grows with the same rate and hence the mean aggregate
interference remains constant. Furthermore, we notice that
µIagg is greater for a larger antenna beamwidth ϕA due to the
presence of more interfering nodes within C. In addition, (7)
indicates that µIagg is linearly proportional to λ.
The variance of aggregate interference σI2agg is given in the
following theorem.
Theorem 2. The variance of the aggregate interference
is given by
σI2agg =

πλP2I
· Υσ (ϕA ),
A2f h2

σI2agg

(16)

where PI is the transmit power of the interfering nodes,
" 
β2
Z ϕ2A
2 (ϕ)
−µLoS +vσLoS
5π
5
Υσ (ϕA ) =
sin(2ϕ) β1
10
−ϕ
12
0
#
 β2 !

2
−µNLoS +vσNLoS
(ϕ)
5π
5
dϕ,
10
−ϕ
+ 1 − β1
12
and v =

ln(10)
10 .

Coefficient of Variation, σIagg /µIagg



PI
1
EΨ [Pr |Φ = ϕ, NLoS] = EΨ
Lf
ΨNLoS
and

h = 500 m
h = 750 m
h = 1000 m

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10-6

10-5

10-4

λ

Fig. 4. Larger interferer density λ and higher altitude h lead to a
lower coefficient of variation σIagg /µIagg .

Proof. The proof is analogous to the one for Theorem 1 and
can be found in Appendix A.
From Theorems 1 and 2, the coefficient of variation (CV)
which is defined as the ratio of
√ σIagg and µIagg , i.e. σIagg /µIagg ,
is inversely proportional to λ and h. This means that as
the drone goes higher or the density of the interfering nodes
grows, the fluctuation of the aggregate interference around
its mean is reduced such that Iagg converges to its mean µIagg
for very large h or λ.
B. Numerical Results and Simulation
In this subsection, we provide the numerical results
and simulation by using the following system parameters:
PI = −10 dB, λ = 10−5 , h = 500 m, ϕA = 120o, and
f = 2 GHz, unless otherwise is indicated.
The numerical results in Figure 2 show that the mean
interference power increases with the beamwidth ϕA due to

the presence of more interfering nodes within the main lobe.
Note that from the PPP assumption with fixed density λ, the
average number of interferers within C is equal to λ|C| =
λπh2 tan2 (ϕA /2). On the other hand, the interference power
seen by the drone above a denser area is lower than in less
populated areas because of more blockages and lower LoS
probability which deteriorate the received power from the
ground terminals. From the figure, the interference growth
at higher ϕA s is slower due to the fact that the interfering
signals from the further nodes are much weaker as discussed
in the previous subsection.
Moreover, Figure 2 shows that due to a high probability
of LoS in a ground-to-air communication link, the power of
interference is significantly high which means that a drone
is affected strongly by the ground interferers. Although by
using directional antenna the cumulative interference can be
reduced, the noise power density which is typically less than
-150 dB is negligible compared to the interference.
The network simulation in Figure 3 illustrates the cumulative distribution function of the aggregate interference
FIagg (x) for different drone altitudes and ground interferer
densities. Each curve is obtained from 105 network realizations. Note that the mean value µIagg at different h is the same
while, it is lower for smaller λ as derived in Theorem 1. As
can be seen from the figure, the relative variation of Iagg
around its mean is larger for smaller λ. To quantify this, we
notice
that the CV, i.e. σIagg /µIagg , is inversely proportional to
√
λ which is illustrated in Figure 4. Moreover, one can find
from this figure that the CV is reduced as h increases such
that the CV is inversely proportional to h. For this reason,
FIagg (x) in Figure 3 is narrower around its mean for higher
altitudes. Generally, the deviation of Iagg from its mean is
low and hence using µIagg instead of Iagg is a reasonable
approximation.

IV. P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS
Here, using the model derived above, we assess the
feasibility of having a drone base station coexisting with
a terrestrial network, without cell planning. In this case,
the drone base station uses the same frequency as the
ground cell, and all UEs transmitting to the ground base
stations are generating interference. While being a worst
case assumption, it is also very realistic, as a cell planning
for mobile base stations is not possible. Thus, we have to
consider a worst case scenario in which drone base stations
fly over a large number of ground cells. Ideally, the drone
base stations are capable of using the same frequency as
terrestrial networks.
We consider an uplink communication link between a UE
and drone base station and evaluate the quality of communication in presence of interfering ground terminals. To this
end, we derive the link coverage probability and transmission
rate which are adequate choices for characterizing the quality
of communication.

A. Link Coverage Probability
From the derived interference model, it was seen that
the interference sensed by the drone is significantly higher
than the noise level, and hence we consider an interferencelimited channel. Accordingly, the coverage probability of the
link between a UE and a drone is defined as
Pcov (T) = P[SIR > T],

(17)

where P[E] is the probability of the event E, SIR is
the signal-to-interference ratio and T is an arbitrary SIR
threshold. The coverage probability can be rewritten as
Pcov (T) = P[SIR > T]
= P[SIRLoS > T]PLoS (ϕ) + P[SIRNLoS > T]PNLoS (ϕ),
(18)
where
SIR =

(

PU
µIagg Lf ΨLoS
PU
µIagg Lf ΨNLoS

; for LoS
; for NLoS

(19)

In (19), PU is the transmit power of the UE communicating
with the drone, and the aggregate interference Iagg is replaced by its mean value µIagg given by (7). Using (5), (18)
and (19) we have
 
β2

5π
PU
β1
−ϕ
Pcov (T) = P ΨLoS <
µIagg Lf T
12


 β2 !

5π
PU
1 − β1
−ϕ
+ P ΨNLoS <
µIagg Lf T
12
 
β2

5π
µLoS − ψ(ϕ)
β1
−ϕ
=Q
σLoS (ϕ)
12



 β2 !
µNLoS − ψ(ϕ)
5π
+Q
1 − β1
−ϕ
,
σNLoS (ϕ)
12
(20)
where the last equation follows from (3), and


PU
.
ψ(ϕ) = 10 log10
µIagg Lf T

(21)

Note that due to the high interference level, a UE that
aims to communicate with a drone base station might need
to increase its transmit power PU , depending on λ and ϕA ,
in order to reach a noticeable coverage probability. In (20),
larger λ and ϕA lead to a smaller ψ(ϕ) which deteriorates
the coverage probability Pcov . On the other hand, the impact
of h on ϕ, ψ(ϕ), σLoS (ϕ), and σNLoS (ϕ) results in opposite
effects on Pcov such that at an optimum altitude the coverage
probability is maximized. This fact is numerically discussed
in Subsection IV-C.
B. Transmission Rate
Following [4], [17] we define the normalized transmission
rate over the communication bandwidth as
Rn , log2 (1 + T) · max Pcov (T)
h

max
= log2 (1 + T) · Pcov
(T).

(22)

1

1.4
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Simulation

0.9

µIagg ),
µIagg ),
µIagg ),
Iagg ),

r
r
r
r

= 200
= 300
= 400
= 400

m
m
m
m

0.9

max
Pcov

1.2

0.8

1.1

0.6
0.5
0.4

1
0.9

0.7

0.2

0.6

Urban

300

400

500

Highrise Urban

600

700

800

0.6

0.8

0.3

0.1

0.7

PI = −10 dB
PI = −9 dB
PI = −8 dB

max
Pcov

0.7

0
200

1

1.3

Rn [b/s/Hz]

Coverage Probability, Pcov

0.8

(with
(with
(with
(with

0.5

Rn

0.4

0.5
900

1000

Altitude, h [m]

Fig. 5. A denser area shows better performance at high altitudes.
The simulation is provided for r = 400 m and shows the accuracy
of the approximation where we use µIagg instead of Iagg for
analyzing the coverage probability Pcov .

Note that (22) assumes that if the UE is in coverage, the
normalized data rate over the transmission bandwidth is
equal to log2 (1 + T).
One can find that the first factor in (22), log2 (1 + T),
is directly proportional to T whereas the second factor,
max
Pcov
(T), is inversely proportional. This results in an optimal
T that maximizes the transmission rate and is evaluated
numerically in the next subsection.
C. Numerical Results and Simulation
In this subsection, we provide the numerical results and
simulation for an urban area by using the following system
parameters: PU = 0 dB, PI = −10 dB, λ = 10−5 ,
ϕA = 120o, T = −2 dB, r = 200 m, and f = 2 GHz,
unless otherwise is indicated.
Figure 5 shows that the coverage probability Pcov is
maximized at an optimum altitude which is dependent
on the distance r. Indeed, as the drone goes higher the
mean aggregate interference power remains the same, while
the link length d increases and consequently deteriorates
the link SIR. On the other hand, at higher altitudes the
drone experiences a higher LoS probability with the UE
which leads to a better channel SIR. These two effects
are balanced at an optimum altitude where Pcov reaches
its maximum. Shorter r results in a higher optimal altitude
and a better coverage probability. As can be seen from the
figure, the coverage probability at high altitudes is higher
for the denser areas which is due to the lower interference
level. Indeed, at low altitudes the link between the UE and
drone in Urban area benefits from higher probability of
LoS compared to Highrise Urban, however at high altitudes
both environments have very high PLoS near to one and
hence the lower interference level leads to higher coverage
probability for Highrise Urban environment. Moreover, the
simulation results obtained by 105 network realizations show

0.4
-5

0.3
-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

T [dB]
max
lower than its
Fig. 6. Transmission rate is maximized at a Pcov
maximum. Lower PI results in a higher maximum rate.

that the approximation of using µIagg instead of Iagg is a
reasonable approach for tractability and simplicity of the
network performance analysis.
Figure 6 illustrates the existence of the optimal SIR
threshold, i.e. T, at which the link rate is the highest.
A higher coverage probability does not necessarily lead
to the maximum rate. In fact, the coverage probability
Pcov (T) decreases with T, while Rn first goes up due to
the profound influence of log2 (1 + T) in (22) and then
start decreasing since the reduction in Pcov (T) becomes
dominant. Furthermore, as PI increases the maximum of
Rn decreases, however for the low values of T, Rn remains
roughly constant.

V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we considered the uplink performance of
a drone cell in the presence of a ground Poisson field of
interferers representing multiple co-channel terrestrial cells.
We statistically characterized the aggregate interference by
its mean value and variance, and showed that the aggregate
interference can be well approximated by its mean value
for analyzing the network performance without the loss of
key features. Our results also indicate that although the
aggregate interference is a dominant component and hence
limiting the achievable performance, an adequate system
dimensioning such as the drone antenna beamwidth, its
altitude, the SIR requirement and the transmission power,
lead to a considerable network efficiency dependent also on
the type of environment. Moreover, we showed that a drone
deployed over a dense urban area, has a better performance
at high altitudes than a drone deployed in rural areas, due
to the lower level of interference and roughly the same
probability of LoS.

A PPENDIX
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 2

R EFERENCES

To obtain the variance of Iagg one can write
2

2
] − (E[Iagg ]) .
σI2agg = E[Iagg

(23)

Following the same reasoning as in (8)–(9) we obtain


!2
k
X
2
K = k
Pr,i
E[Iagg
] = EK EΦ,Ψ
i=1

i
h
2
(24a)
= EK kEΦ,Ψ [P2r ] + k(k − 1) (EΦ,Ψ [Pr ])
= EK [k]EΦ,Ψ [P2r ] + EK [k(k − 1)](EΦ,Ψ [Pr ])2
= λ|C| · EΦ,Ψ [P2r ] + (λ|C| · EΦ,Ψ [Pr ])2
= λ|C| ·

EΦ,Ψ [P2r ]

2

+ (E[Iagg ]) .

(24b)
(24c)

In (24a) we used the fact that Pr,i are i.i.d, (24b) is obtained by replacing the mean and variance of K with λ|C|.
Moreover in (24c) the relation in (9) is used.
Using (23) and (24c) yields
σI2agg = λ|C| · EΦ,Ψ [P2r ].

(25)

Similar to (10)–(12), we can respectively write
Z ϕ2A
2πh2
sin(ϕ)
EΦ,Ψ [P2r ] =
EΨ [P2r |Φ = ϕ] dϕ,
|C| 0 cos3 (ϕ)
EΨ [P2r |Φ = ϕ] = EΨ [P2r |Φ = ϕ, LoS] · PLoS (ϕ)

+ EΨ [P2r |Φ = ϕ, NLoS] · PNLoS (ϕ),
"
2 #
 2
1
PI
2
,
EΨ
EΨ [Pr |Φ = ϕ, LoS] =
Lf
ΨLoS
"
2 #
 2
1
P
I
. (26)
EΨ
EΨ [P2r |Φ = ϕ, NLoS] =
Lf
ΨNLoS

Since Ψ1LoS follows a log-normal distribution with the param2
eters −vµLoS and v 2 σLoS
, one can find [16]
"
2 #
2
−µLoS +vσLoS
1
5
EΨ
(27)
= 10
ΨLoS
and similarly
EΨ

"

1
ΨNLoS

2 #

= 10

2
−µNLoS +vσNLoS
5

.

Finally, using (2), (5), (25)–(28) and the fact that
sin(2ϕ) = 2 sin(ϕ) cos(ϕ)
we obtain (16).

(28)

[1] S. Katikala, “Google project loon,” InSight: Rivier Academic Journal,
vol. 10, no. 2, 2014.
[2] Facebook, Connecting the World from the Sky. Facebook, Technical
Report, 2014.
[3] Absolute (aerial base stations with opportunistic links for unexpected
and temporary events). [Online]. Available: http://www.absoluteproject.eu
[4] M. M. Azari, F. Rosas, K.-C. Chen, and S. Pollin, “Joint sum-rate and
power gain analysis of an aerial base station,” in Globecom Workshops
(GC Wkshps), 2016 IEEE. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6.
[5] M. M. Azari, F. Rosas, A. Chiumento, and S. Pollin, “Coexistence
of terrestrial and aerial users in cellular networks,” in Globecom
Workshops (GC Wkshps). to be appeared, 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.03103
[6] M. M. Azari, F. Rosas, and S. Pollin, “Reshaping cellular networks for the sky: The major factors and feasibility,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1710.11404, 2017.
[7] A. Al-Hourani, S. Kandeepan, and S. Lardner, “Optimal lap altitude
for maximum coverage,” Wireless Communications Letters, IEEE,
vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 569–572, 2014.
[8] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Drone small
cells in the clouds: Design, deployment and performance analysis,”
in Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2015 IEEE.
IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–6.
[9] M. M. Azari, Y. Murillo, O. Amin, F. Rosas, M.-S. Alouini, and
S. Pollin, “Coverage maximization for a poisson field of drone cells,”
in IEEE PIMRC. to be appeared, Oct. 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.06598
[10] H. ElSawy, E. Hossain, and M. Haenggi, “Stochastic geometry for
modeling, analysis, and design of multi-tier and cognitive cellular
wireless networks: A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys &
Tutorials, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 996–1019, 2013.
[11] M. Haenggi, R. K. Ganti et al., “Interference in large wireless
networks,” Foundations and Trends R in Networking, vol. 3, no. 2,
pp. 127–248, 2009.
[12] H. ElSawy, A. Sultan-Salem, M.-S. Alouini, and M. Z. Win, “Modeling and analysis of cellular networks using stochastic geometry: A
tutorial,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2016.
[13] A. Al-Hourani, S. Kandeepan, and A. Jamalipour, “Modeling air-toground path loss for low altitude platforms in urban environments,”
in Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM). IEEE, 2014,
pp. 2898–2904.
[14] M. Rahman and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Enhancing cell-edge performance: a downlink dynamic interference avoidance scheme with intercell coordination,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1414–1425, April 2010.
[15] M. M. Azari, A. M. Rabiei, and A. Behnad, “Probabilistic relay
assignment strategy for cooperation networks with random relays,”
IET Communications, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 930–937, 2014.
[16] C. Forbes, M. Evans, N. Hastings, and B. Peacock, Statistical distributions. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[17] S. Shalmashi, E. Björnson, M. Kountouris, K. W. Sung, and M. Debbah, “Energy efficiency and sum rate tradeoffs for massive mimo
systems with underlaid device-to-device communications,” EURASIP
Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, vol. 2016,
no. 1, 2016.

