1

Joint Altitude and Beamwidth Optimization for
UAV-Enabled Multiuser Communications
Haiyun He, Shuowen Zhang, Student Member, IEEE, Yong Zeng, Member, IEEE,

arXiv:1711.02343v1 [] 7 Nov 2017

Rui Zhang, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract
In this letter, we study multiuser communication systems enabled by an unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) that is equipped with a directional antenna of adjustable beamwidth. We propose a fly-hoverand-communicate protocol where the ground terminals (GTs) are partitioned into disjoint clusters
that are sequentially served by the UAV as it hovers above the corresponding cluster centers. We
jointly optimize the UAV’s flying altitude and antenna beamwidth for throughput optimization in
three fundamental multiuser communication models, namely UAV-enabled downlink multicasting (MC),
downlink broadcasting (BC), and uplink multiple access (MAC). Our results show that the optimal UAV
altitude and antenna beamwidth critically depend on the communication model considered.

Index Terms
UAV communication, altitude optimization, directional antenna, beamwidth optimization, wireless
network.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Wireless communication assisted by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is a promising technology to meet the highly diversified and dynamic data demands in future wireless systems
[1]. Compared to existing technologies such as small cell and satellite communication, UAVenabled wireless communication has appealing advantages, such as the ability of on-demand and
fast deployment, higher capacity due to dominant line-of-sight (LoS) communication links with
the ground terminals (GTs), and additional design degrees of freedom by exploiting the fully
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore (e-mail:
{haiyun.he,shuowen.zhang}@u.nus.edu, {elezeng,elezhang}@nus.edu.sg).

2

controllable UAV mobility. Thus, UAV-enabled communication is expected to play a significant
role in future wireless systems, especially for applications such as data offloading for cellular
base stations (BSs) in temporary hotspot areas, mobile relaying for emergency responses, periodic
information dissemination and data collection in large Internet of Things (IoT) networks, etc.
To realize the full potential of UAV-enabled communication, it is crucial to maximally exploit
the fully controllable UAV mobility in the three-dimensional (3D) space. The horizontal and/or
vertical positions of the UAVs could be optimized for their deployment, leading to various twodimensional (2D) or 3D UAV placement designs [2]–[8]. Furthermore, the UAVs’ locations could
be contiguously adjusted over time to best meet the communication requirement, which leads to
the more general UAV trajectory optimization problems [9], [10].
However, the existing works mainly assume that the UAVs are equipped with either omnidirectional antenna or directional antenna with fixed beamwidth. In this letter, we consider
the new case where the UAV is equipped with a directional antenna whose beamwidth can
be adjusted. Note that with contemporary beamwidth tuning technologies [11], antennas with
tunable radiation patterns have already been applied for various applications such as satellite
communication and remote sensing. For UAV-enabled wireless communication systems with
tunable antenna beamwidth, there is in general an interesting trade-off in adjusting the antenna
beamwidth of the UAV versus its altitude above a ground position. Specifically, for a given UAV
altitude, increasing the antenna beamwidth helps cover more GTs within the antenna’s main
lobe, but at the cost of reduced link capacity for each of those GTs due to the reduced antenna
gain in the main lobe. On the other hand, for a given antenna beamwidth, an increase in the UAV
altitude would cover more GTs, but with lower link capacity for each GT due to the increased
link distance.
To optimally resolve such a trade-off, we study in this letter the joint UAV altitude and
beamwidth optimization problem for UAV-enabled multiuser communication systems. We propose a practical fly-hover-and-communicate protocol, where the GTs are partitioned into disjoint
clusters with the size of each cluster determined by the area projected by the antenna’s main
lobe on the ground. Each cluster is then sequentially served by the UAV as it hovers above the
corresponding cluster center. Note that although this protocol may be suboptimal in general, it

3

is favorable for practical implementation.1 We study three fundamental UAV-enabled multiuser
communication models, namely, downlink multicasting (MC), where the UAV sends common
information to all GTs in each cluster, downlink broadcasting (BC), where the UAV sends
independent information to different GTs via frequency division multiple access (FDMA), and
uplink multiple access (MAC), where each GT sends independent information to the UAV via
FDMA. Our results show that the optimal UAV altitude and antenna beamwidth critically depend
on the communication model considered. Specifically, in terms of the UAV altitude, it should
be set as the maximum possible value for downlink MC, but the minimum possible value for
downlink BC, while it can be any feasible value for uplink MAC since the throughput is shown
to be independent of the UAV altitude. On the other hand, for antenna beamwidth, an optimal
value exists for downlink MC, while it should be set to the minimum feasible value for downlink
BC, and its effect on uplink MAC is shown to be marginal.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a UAV-enabled wireless communication system as shown in Fig. 1, where the
UAV is deployed as a flying BS at an altitude of H meters (m) to serve K GTs in a large
area A of size A m2 . The GTs are assumed to be uniformly distributed in A with density
ρ=

K
A

GTs/m2 . We assume that the UAV is equipped with a directional antenna of adjustable

beamwidth. For simplicity, we assume that the azimuth and elevation half-power beamwidths of

the UAV antenna are equal, which are both denoted as 2Θ in radians (rad), with Θ ∈ 0, π2 .
Moreover, the corresponding antenna gain in direction (θ, ψ) is approximately modelled as


 G20 ,
−Θ ≤ θ ≤ Θ, −Θ ≤ ψ ≤ Θ
Θ
G=
(1)

g ≈ 0, otherwise,
where G0 =

30000
22

×


π 2
180

≈ 2.2846; θ and ψ denote the azimuth and elevation angles,

respectively ([12], Eq. (2-51)). Note that g satisfies 0 < g ≪

G0
Θ2

in practice, and we assume g = 0

for simplicity. On the other hand, we assume that each GT is equipped with an omnidirectional
antenna with unit gain. Thus, for any given UAV location, the disk region on the ground that
1
In this letter, we assume that rotary-wing UAV is adopted, which is capable of hovering at desired locations. Moreover, we
assume delay-tolerant communications between the UAV and the GTs (e.g., periodic sensing for the uplink and information
dissemination in a public safety network for the downlink), where the tolerable delay for each GT is sufficiently large such that
any delay incurred in our proposed design does not affect the quality-of-service (QoS) at the GTs.

4

Fig. 1. A UAV-enabled outdoor wireless communication system.

is covered by the antenna’s main lobe with radius r̄ = H tan Θ corresponds to the ground
coverage area of the UAV, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Furthermore, we assume that the GTs are
located outdoors in rural areas, and the communication channel between the UAV and each GT
is dominated by the LoS path,2 thus the channel power gain between the UAV and a GT with
horizontal distance r ≤ r̄ to the UAV is given by
h(r) =

β0
,
+ r2

H2

(2)

where β0 denotes the channel power gain at the reference distance d0 = 1m.
A
As

We assume that the area A is sufficiently large such that it can be partitioned into N =
tessellated regular hexagonal cells denoted by {Ai }N
i=1 for any given r̄, each with equal

circumradius r̄ and size As =
each Ai is then given by

√
3 3 2
r̄ ,
2

as illustrated in Fig. 1. The average number of GTs in

√
3 3 2
Ks = ρAs =
ρH tan2 Θ.
2

(3)

It is worth noting that the Ks GTs in each Ai all lie within the UAV coverage area when the UAV
is hovering above the center of Ai , denoted as Ci . Under the proposed fly-hover-and-communicate
2

Note that for other scenarios (e.g., where GTs are located indoors and/or in urban areas), the LoS channel model serves as
a benchmark and helps to characterize the performance limits of more practical scenarios.

5

protocol, the UAV sequentially serves the GTs in A by successively flying over Ci ’s based on
a certain order (e.g., that obtained via algorithms for solving the travelling salesman problem to
minimize the total flying distance [13]), and hovering above each Ci for time duration Ti > 0
seconds (s) to communicate with the corresponding Ks GTs in Ai . In this letter, we assume that
the UAV flying speed Vm is sufficiently large and the sum hovering time is much larger than
P
L
the UAV flying time, i.e., N
i=1 Ti ≫ Vm , where L denotes the total traveling distance. Thus the
PN
P
L
mission completion time can be expressed as Tcompletion = N
i=1 Ti .
i=1 Ti + Vm ≈
We assume that the feasible range of altitude H of the UAV is given by [Hmin, Hmax ], where

Hmin > 0 and Hmax > Hmin are practically determined by e.g., obstacle heights and authority
regulations; and the feasible range of half-beamwidth Θ is assumed to be [Θmin , Θmax ], where
Θmin > 0 and Θmin < Θmax <

π
2

are determined by the practical antenna beamwidth tuning

technique adopted (e.g., [11]). For all multiuser systems considered, we denote W as the total
communication bandwidth in Hz; Pd in watt (W) as the transmission power at the UAV for
the two downlink cases (MC and BC) and Pu as the transmission power by each GT for the
uplink case (MAC). Furthermore, N0 denotes the noise power spectrum density at all receivers
in W/Hz.
III. D OWNLINK M ULTICASTING
In this section, we consider the case of downlink MC, where the UAV has a mission to
deliver a common file of total size D̄ bits to all GTs in A. Our objective is to minimize the
mission completion time by jointly optimizing H and Θ. As clarified in Section II, the mission
P
completion time can be approximated by TMC ≈ N
i=1 Ti .
When the UAV hovers above Ci , the received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at a GT with distance

r to Ci is given by
γMC (r) =
where α =

P d G0 β 0
.
N0 W

α
Pd Gh(r)
= 2 2
,
N0 W
Θ (H + r 2 )

0 ≤ r ≤ r̄,

(4)

The corresponding achievable communication rate is thus given by RMC (r) =

log2 (1 + γMC (r)) in bits per second per Hz (bps/Hz). By noting that RMC (r) is a decreasing
function of r, it follows that the common file can be completely delivered to all GTs in Ai if
Ti W RMC (r̄) ≥ D̄ holds, with RMC (r̄) denoting the achievable rate of the cell-edge GT. Hence,

6

the mission completion time for downlink MC with the proposed scheme can be written as
TMC =

K D̄
K D̄
N D̄
W
=
= W .
W RMC (r̄)
Ks RMC (r̄)
R̃MC

(5)

∆

Consequently, TMC is minimized by maximizing R̃MC = Ks RMC (r̄), which can be explicitly
expressed as

√


α cos2 Θ
3 3 2
2
ρH tan Θ log2 1+ 2 2
.
R̃MC (H, Θ) =
2
Θ H

(6)

It is worth noting that as H or Θ increases, Ks given in (3) increases, while RMC (r̄) decreases.
To balance the above trade-off and find the optimal H and Θ for maximizing R̃MC (H, Θ), we
present the following results.
Proposition 1: For any given Θ ∈ [Θmin,Θmax ], R̃MC (H, Θ) is a non-decreasing function of
H, with H > 0.
√
α cos2 Θ
3 3
,
α̃
=
ρ tan2 Θ and H̃ = H 2 . It can
2
Θ2
2 ln 2
−α̃21 α̃2
(H,Θ)
∂ 2 R̃MC (H,Θ)
< 0, which imply that ∂ R̃MC
=
2
H̃(α̃1 +H̃)2
∂ H̃
∂ H̃

Proof: Define α̃1 =
(H,Θ)
lim ∂ R̃MC
= 0,
∂ H̃

H̃→∞

be shown that
≥ 0, ∀H̃ > 0.

⋆
Proposition 1 implies that for any given Θ, the optimal H is HMC
= Hmax . This is because

as H grows, the increase in Ks is more significant than the decrease in RMC (r̄).
Next, we investigate the effect of Θ on R̃MC (H, Θ) with given H = Hmax . However, due to
the complicated expression of the derivative of R̃MC (H, Θ) with respect to Θ, it is generally
difficult to obtain a closed-form solution of the optimal Θ to maximize R̃MC (H, Θ), which is
denoted as Θ⋆MC . As a result, Θ⋆MC needs to be obtained via a one-dimensional search over
[Θmin , Θmax ], for which the numerical results will be given later in Section VI. Nevertheless, it
√
2
3 3
ρα sinΘ2Θ ,
2
Θ < π2 . Thus,

can be shown from (6) that lim R̃MC (H, Θ) =
since

sin2 Θ
Θ2

H→∞

is a decreasing function of Θ, 0 <

which yields lim Θ⋆MC = Θmin ,
H→∞

when Hmax is sufficiently large,

the corresponding optimal beamwidth is Θ⋆MC = Θmin.
IV. D OWNLINK B ROADCASTING
Next, we consider the case of downlink BC where the UAV needs to send independent
information to each of the GTs in A. Our objective is to maximize the GTs’ sum throughput
within a given period TBC (in s) via joint optimization of H and Θ. Let the sum rate of all
GTs in each cell Ai be denoted by RBC in bps/Hz. Then the total throughput of all cells is
P
given by DBC = N
i=1 Ti W RBC = TBC W RBC in bits. Hence, maximizing DBC is equivalent

7

to maximizing RBC . Note that a closed-form expression of RBC is generally difficult to obtain
since it involves integration of GT rates over uniform distribution in the hexagonal cell Ai . For
analytical tractability, we assume that when the UAV hovers above each Ci , it serves all GTs
within the disk region A′i centered at Ci with the same radius r̄ as Ai , as shown in Fig. 1,

which is of size A′s = πr̄ 2 . Thus, there are on average Ks′ = ρA′s = ρπH 2 tan2 Θ GTs in A′i ,
whose sum rate is denoted by R̃BC in bps/Hz. In the sequel, we aim to maximize R̃BC as an
approximation of RBC .

We assume FDMA for the Ks′ GTs to be simultaneously served by the UAV in each A′i ,
where each GT is allocated with an equal bandwidth

W
.
Ks′

Moreover, we consider the equal power

allocation scheme, where the total UAV downlink transmission power Pd is equally allocated to
the Ks′ GTs in each A′i . Thus, when the UAV hovers above Ci , the received SNR at a GT with
distance r to Ci is given by
γBC (r) =

Pd
Gh(r)
Ks′
W
N0 K
′
s

=

α
Θ2 (H 2

+ r2)

The corresponding GT rate is then given by RBC (r) =

1
Ks′

,

0 ≤ r ≤ r̄.

(7)

log2 (1 + γBC (r)) =


log2 1+

α
Θ2 (H 2 +r 2 )
ρπH 2 tan2 Θ

bps/Hz. Hence, the total communication rate of all GTs in A′i is given by
Z 2π Z H tan Θ
R̃BC (H, Θ) =
ρRBC (r)rdrdθ
0
0



α 
1
1
α cos2 Θ
1
+
−
log
= 2 log2 1 +
2
Θ2 H 2
tan2 Θ
Θ2 H 2
sin Θ


α
Θ2 H 2 + α cos2 Θ
+ 2 2
.
log
2
Θ H tan2 Θ
Θ2 H 2 cos2 Θ + α cos2 Θ



(8)

Note that there exists a trade-off between the individual GT rate, RBC (r), and the number of
GTs in A′i , Ks′ , which are decreasing and increasing functions of both H and Θ, respectively.
To obtain the optimal H and Θ to maximize R̃BC (H, Θ), we provide the following proposition.
Proposition 2: For any given Θ ∈ [Θmin, Θmax ], R̃BC (H, Θ) is a decreasing function of H,
with H > 0.
2

∂ R̃BC (H,Θ)
∂ H̃

α
H̃ 2 Θ2 tan2 Θ





Proof: Let H̃ = H . It can be shown that
log2 H̃ +
=


, which is negative since cos2 Θ < 1 for any Θ ∈ [Θmin , Θmax ].
log2 cosH̃2 Θ + Θα2

α
Θ2



−

Proposition 2 indicates that given any Θ, the optimal H in the downlink BC case is HBC ⋆ =

Hmin , which is in sharp contrast to the previous case of downlink MC in Section III. This can

8

be intuitively explained as follows. Note that due to the bandwidth partitioning for FDMA, as H
increases, each individual GT rate in downlink BC decreases more quickly than that in downlink
MC, since in the BC case each GT is assigned smaller portion of the total bandwidth and less
power with the increasing number of GTs served. On the other hand, due to the difficulty in
deriving a closed-form expression of the optimal Θ from (8), we examine the effect of the
beamwidth Θ on R̃BC (H, Θ) numerically in Section VI.
V. U PLINK M ULTIPLE ACCESS
Last, we consider the case of uplink MAC, where each GT in A needs to send independent
information to the UAV. Our objective is to maximize the GTs’ sum throughput within a given
period TMAC (in s) by jointly optimizing H and Θ. Similar to the case of downlink BC in
Section IV, we assume that the UAV serves all Ks′ GTs in A′i via FDMA with equal bandwidth
allocation over the served GTs, thus the sum throughput is maximized by maximizing the total
communication rate of all GTs in A′i , denoted as R̃MAC .
When the UAV hovers above Ci , the received SNR at the UAV from a GT with distance r to
Ci is given by

ηH 2 tan2 Θ
Pu h(r)G
= 2 2
,
γMAC (r) =
W
Θ (H + r 2 )
N0 K
′
s

where η =

Pu β0 G0 ρπ
.
N0 W

0 ≤ r ≤ r̄,

The corresponding GT rate is given by RMAC (r) =

(9)
1
Ks′

log2 (1 + γMAC (r))

bps/Hz, which can be shown to decrease as H or Θ increases, since the decrease in

1
Ks′

is more

significant than the increase in log2 (1 + γMAC (r)). The total rate of all GTs in A′i is given by
Z 2π Z H tan Θ
R̃MAC (H, Θ) =
ρRMAC (r)rdrdθ
0
0





η tan2 Θ
η sin2 Θ
1
1
− log2 1 +
log2 1 +
=
tan2 Θ cos2 Θ
Θ2
Θ2



Θ2 tan2 Θ
η tan2 Θ
1
+
.
(10)
log
+
2
Θ2
Θ2 + η tan2 Θ
Note that interestingly, R̃MAC (H, Θ) is independent of H, since as H grows, the decrease
in RMAC (r) equally compensates the increase in Ks′ in (10). On the other hand, similar to the
previous two cases, we will investigate the optimal Θ, Θ⋆MAC , to maximize R̃MAC (H, Θ) =
R̃MAC (Θ) regardless of H via numerical examples in the next section.

9

VI. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, we provide numerical results to validate our analysis. We consider β0 =
1.42 × 10−4 , W = 10MHz, Pd = 10dBm, Pu = −10dBm, N0 = −169dBm/Hz, and ρ = 0.005
GTs/m2 , unless specified otherwise.

First, we consider the case of downlink MC and plot R̃MC given in (6) versus Θ under different
values of H in Fig. 2. It can be observed that for any given Θ, R̃MC increases with H, thus
validating Proposition 1. Moreover, it is observed that given any H, R̃MC first increases and then
decreases as Θ increases from 0 to π2 ; while the optimal Θ⋆MC that maximizes R̃MC is shown to
be non-increasing with H, which is consistent with our analysis that lim Θ⋆MC = Θmin .
H→∞

0.3

R̃MC (Mbps/Hz)

0.25
0.2

H=500m
H=1500m
H=2500m
H=3500m
H=4500m

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8
Θ (rad)

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Fig. 2. R̃MC versus Θ under different H values in downlink MC.

Next, we consider the case of downlink BC. In Fig. 3, we plot the analytical results of R̃BC
given in (8), versus H with fixed Θ =

π
10

rad or versus Θ with fixed H = 500m. We also plot

the simulation results of R̃BC obtained by averaging over 100 independent realizations of GT
locations, which are observed to match closely with the analytical results in Section IV. It is
also observed that R̃BC decreases with H as well as Θ, which is consistent with our analysis in
Section IV and suggests that smaller H or Θ is desirable for maximizing R̃BC .
Last, we consider the case of uplink MAC. In Fig. 4, we plot both the analytical and simulation
results for R̃MAC given in (10) versus Θ with arbitrary H and ρ = 0.001, 0.005 or 0.01 GTs/m2 .
It is observed that the analytical and simulation results match well. Moreover, for each given ρ,
R̃MAC first increases and then decreases as Θ increases from 0 to π2 , and the optimal Θ⋆MAC that

10

16
R̃BC analytical
R̃BC simulation

R̃BC (bps/Hz)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

500

1000

1500

2000 2500
H (m)
(a) Θ =

π
10

3000

3500

4000

4500

rad

15

R̃BC (bps/Hz)

R̃BC analytical
R̃BC simulation
10

5

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8
Θ (rad)

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

(b) H = 500m
Fig. 3. R̃BC versus H or Θ in downlink BC.

maximizes R̃MAC is almost the same for different values of ρ, which is 1.3195 (or 79.7271 in
degree) if 1.3195 ∈ [Θmin, Θmax ], as indicated in Fig. 4.
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
In this letter, we studied the joint altitude and beamwidth optimization problem for UAVenabled multiuser communication systems. Three fundamental models were studied based on
our proposed fly-hover-and-communicate protocol. Our results show drastically different rules
for setting optimal altitude and beamwidth values in different multiuser models. We hope that the
results provide new and helpful insights for the design of practical UAV-enabled communication

11

R̃MAC (bps/Hz)

13

12

11

10

9
0

ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ

=
=
=
=
=
=

0.2

0.001
0.001
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.010

analytical
simulation
analytical
simulation
analytical
simulation

0.4

0.6

0.8
Θ (rad)

1

1.2

1.4
1.3195

1.6

Fig. 4. R̃MAC versus Θ under various GT density ρ in uplink MAC.

systems. Extension of our results to the case with fading UAV-GT channels and/or multiple
UAVs is an interesting direction of future work.
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] A. Al-Hourani, S. Kandeepan, and S. Lardner, “Optimal LAP altitude for maximum coverage,” IEEE Wireless Commun.
Lett., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 569–572, Dec. 2014.
[3] R. Yaliniz, A. El-Keyi, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Efficient 3-D placement of an aerial base station in next generation cellular
networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 2016.
[4] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Efficient deployment of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles for optimal
wireless coverage,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 1647–1650, Aug. 2016.
[5] ——, “Unmanned aerial vehicle with underlaid device-to-device communications: Performance and tradeoffs,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 3949–3963, Jun. 2016.
[6] V. Sharma, M. Bennis, and R. Kumar, “UAV-assisted heterogeneous networks for capacity enhancement,” IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1207–1210, Apr. 2016.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, and T. J. Lim, “Throughput maximization for UAV-enabled mobile relaying systems,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 4983–4996, Dec. 2016.
[10] 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.
[11] T. Debogovic, J. P. Carrier, and J. Bartolic, “Partially reflective surface antenna with dynamic beamwidth control,” IEEE
Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., vol. 9, pp. 1157–1160, Dec. 2010.

12

[12] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design, 4th ed.

New York: Wiley, 2016.

[13] G. Laporte, “The traveling salesman problem: An overview of exact and approximate algorithms,” EUR. J. Oper. Res.,
vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 231–247, Jun. 1992.

