Joint optimization of transmission and propulsion in aerial
communication networks

arXiv:1710.01529v1 [cs.SY] 4 Oct 2017

Omar J. Faqir, Eric C. Kerrigan, and Deniz Gündüz
Abstract— Communication energy in a wireless network of
mobile autonomous agents should be considered as the sum of
transmission energy and propulsion energy used to facilitate the
transfer of information. Accordingly, communication-theoretic
and Newtonian dynamic models are developed to model the
communication and locomotion expenditures of each node.
These are subsequently used to formulate a novel nonlinear
optimal control problem (OCP) over a network of autonomous
nodes. It is then shown that, under certain conditions, the
OCP can be transformed into an equivalent convex form.
Numerical results for a single link between a node and access
point allow for comparison with known solutions before the
framework is applied to a multiple-node UAV network, for
which previous results are not readily extended. Simulations
show that transmission energy can be of the same order of
magnitude as propulsion energy allowing for possible savings,
whilst also exemplifying how speed adaptations together with
power control may increase the network throughput.

U2

U1
a1

p
a22 + δ22

AP
(0, 0)

Fig. 1: Geometric configuration for simulation setups featuring N = 1 (black) and N = 2 (green) nodes. Speeds
along these paths may be variable or fixed. The altitudes
and lateral displacements of U1 , U2 are a1 = a2 = 1000 m
and δ1 = 0, δ2 = 1000 m, respectively.

I. I NTRODUCTION
We aim to derive a control strategy to minimize communication energy in robotic networks. In particular, uninhabited
aerial vehicle (UAV) networks are considered, with results
being generalizable to broader classes of autonomous networks. A dynamic transmission model, based on physical
layer communication-theoretic bounds, and a mobility model
for each node is considered alongside a possible network
topology. As a cost function, we employ the underused
interpretation of communication energy as the sum of transmission energy and propulsion energy used for transmission,
i.e. when a node changes position to achieve a better channel.
For simulation purposes we consider the two wireless
network setups shown in Figure 1. We first present the most
basic scenario consisting of a single agent U1 moving along a
predefined linear path while offloading its data to a stationary
access point (AP). We compare results for variable and fixed
speeds, before studying a two-agent single-hop network.
For UAV networks, research efforts largely break down
into two streams: the use of UAVs in objective based
missions (e.g. search and pursuit [1], information gathering/mobile sensor networks [2], [3]), and use as supplementary network links [4]. Optimal completion of these
macro goals has been addressed in the literature, but there
The support of the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in High Performance Embedded and Distributed Systems (HiPEDS, Grant Reference
EP/L016796/1) is gratefully acknowledged.
O. J. Faqir and Deniz Gündüz are with the Department of Electrical
& Electronics Engineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, U.K.
ojf12@ic.ac.uk, d.gunduz@ic.ac.uk
Eric C. Kerrigan is with the Department of Electrical & Electronic
Engineering and Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College London,
London SW7 2AZ, U.K. e.kerrigan@imperial.ac.uk

is no necessary equivalence between optimal task-based and
energy-efficient operations.
Efforts concerning mobility focus on mobile (in which
node mobility models are random) or vehicular (where
mobility is determined by higher level objectives and infrastructure) ad-hoc networks [5]. Since neither are fully
autonomous networks, mobility is not available as a decision
variable. The work in [6] introduced the concept of proactive
networks, where certain nodes are available as mobile relays.
However, the focus is on relay trajectory design and a simplistic transmission model is assumed, inherently prohibiting
energy efficiency. The related problem of router formation is
investigated in [7] using realistic models of communication
environments.
We assume hard path constraints, possibly due to the
existence of higher level macro objectives, but allow changes
in trajectory along the path by optimizing their speed (as
in [8], we define a trajectory as being a time-parameterized
path). Use of fixed paths does not restrict our results as
most UAV path planning algorithms operate over longer time
horizons and are generally restricted to linear or circular
loiter trajectories [8]. A linear program (LP) is used in [9]
to determine how close a rolling-robot should move before
transmission in order to minimize total energy. However, the
linear motion dynamics used restricts applicability of the
model. Similarly to our current work, [10] uses a single
mobile UAV relay to maximize data throughput between
a stationary source-destination pair. An optimal trajectory
for an a priori transmission scheme is iteratively found.
Similarly, for a given trajectory, the optimal relaying scheme

may be obtained through water-filling over the source-torelay and relay-to-receiver channels.
Our contribution differs from the above works in terms of
the formulation of a more general nonlinear convex OCP for
finding joint transmission and mobility strategies to minimize
communication energy. We solve this problem, exemplifying
possible savings for even just a single node. As a final
point, we show analytically and numerically that, even at
fixed speeds, the optimal transmission scheme for a twouser multiple-access channel(MAC) is counter-intuitive and
not captured by naı̈ve transmission policies.
II. P ROBLEM D ESCRIPTION
Consider N homogeneous mobile nodes Un , n ∈ N ,
{1, . . . , N }, traveling along linear non-intersecting trajectories at constant altitudes an and lateral displacements δn over
a time interval T , [0, T ]. The trajectory of node Un is
denoted by t 7→ (qn (t), δn , an ), relative to a single stationary
AP U0 at position (0, 0, 0) in a three dimensional space. At
t = 0, Un is initialized with a data load of Dn bits, which
must all be offloaded to U0 by time t = T . We consider a
cooperative network model, in which all nodes cooperate to
offload all the data in the network to the AP by relaying each
other’s data. Each node has a data buffer of capacity M bits,
which limits the amount of data it can store and relay.

CN (q, p) , {r ≥ 0 | fm (q, p, r, S) ≤ 0, ∀S ⊆ N } ,

We employ scalar additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN)
channels. For UAV applications, we assume all links are
dominated by line-of-sight (LoS) components, resulting in
flat fading channels, meaning all signal components undergo
similar amplitude gains [11]. All nodes have perfect information regarding link status, which in practice may be
achieved through feedback of channel measurements, while
the overhead due to channel state feedback is ignored.
Similar to [12], for a given link from source node Un to
receiver node Um , the channel gain ηnm (·) is expressed as
(1)

where qnm , qn − qm , constant G represents transmit and
receive antenna gains and α ≥ 1 the path loss exponent. We
define anm and δnm in a similar fashion. The channel gain
is inversely related to the Euclidean distance between nodes.
Each node has a single omnidirectional antenna of maximum transmit power of Pmax Watts. We consider half duplex
radios; each node transmits and receives over orthogonal
frequency bands. Accordingly, a different frequency band
is assigned for each node’s reception, and all messages
destined for this node are transmitted over this band, forming
a MAC. We do not allow any coding (e.g. network coding) or
combining of different data packets at the nodes, and instead
consider a decode-and-forward-based routing protocol at the
relay nodes [13]. The resulting network is a composition of
Gaussian MACs, for each of which the set of achievable
rate tuples defines a polymatroid capacity region [14]. If N

(2)

where q is the tuple of the differences qnm in positions
between the N users and the receiver, p ∈ P N is the
tuple of transmission powers allocated by the N users on
this channel, and P , [0, Pmax ] is the range of possible
transmission powers for each user. fm (·) is a nonlinear
function bounding CN (q, p), given by
X
fm (q, p, r, S) ,
rn −
n∈S

Bm log2

A. Communication Model

G
ηnm (qnm ) , p
2α ,
2 + q2
a2nm + δnm
nm

nodes simultaneously transmit independent information to
the same receiver, the received signal is a superposition of
the transmitted signals scaled by their respective channel
gains, plus an AWGN term. We model the achievable data
rates using Shannon capacity, which is a commonly used
upper bound on the practically achievable data rates subject
to average power constraints. Due to the convexity of the
capacity region, throughput maximization does not require
time-sharing between nodes [14], but may be achieved
through successive interference cancellation (SIC).
Consider a single MAC consisting of N users Un , n ∈ N ,
transmitting to a receiver Um , m 6∈ N . The capacity region
CN (·, ·), which denotes the set of all achievable rate tuples r,
is defined as

X ηnm (qnm )pn
1+
σ2
n∈S

!

, (3)

where rn is the nth component of r, Bm is the bandwidth
allocated to Um , and σ 2 is the receiver noise power. Consider
the example (Section IV-B) where we do not allow relaying.
This gives rise to a MAC with N = 2 transmitters U1 , U2
and the AP U0 . The capacity region C2 (q, p) is the set of
non-negative tuples (r1 , r2 ) that satisfy


η10 (q10 )p1
(4a)
r1 ≤ B0 log2 1 +
σ2


η20 (q20 )p2
r2 ≤ B0 log2 1 +
(4b)
σ2


η10 (q10 )p1 + η20 (q20 )p2
(4c)
r1 + r2 ≤ B0 log2 1 +
σ2

for all (p1 , p2 ) ∈ P 2 . The first two bounds restrict individual
user rates to the single-user Shannon capacity. Dependence
between U1 and U2 leads to the final constraint, that the sum
rate may not exceed the point-to-point capacity with full
cooperation. For transmit powers (p1 , p2 ) these constraints
trace out the pentagon shown in Figure 2. The sum rate
is maximized at any point on the segment L3 . Referring
to SIC, the rate pair at boundary point R(1) is achieved
if the signal from source U2 is decoded entirely before
source U1 , resulting in the signal from U2 being decoded at
a higher interference rate than the signal from U1 . At R(2)
the opposite occurs.
B. Propulsion Energy Model
The electrical energy used for propulsion in rolling robots
has been modeled as a linear or polynomial function of speed

achievable data rates is bounded above by a set of 2|N | − 1
nonlinear submodular functions fm (·, ·, ·, ·), where |·| applied
to a set denotes the cardinality operator. Exponential growth
in the number of nodes is a computational intractability.
Hence, results are limited to small or structured networks
where only a subset of nodes use each MAC.
The trajectory of node Un is denoted by the tuple

r1
L1

R(1)
L3
R(2)
L2

Yn , (pn , rn , sn , qn , vn , v̇n , Fn ),
r2

Fig. 2: Capacity region for a given power policy across two
parallel channels, with corner rate pairs labeled as R(1) =
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
(r1 , r2 ) and R(2) = (r1 , r2 ) and line segments labeled
as L1 , L2 , L3 .

(7)

where qn (t) is the node’s position at time t and sn (t) the
state of its storage buffer subject to maximum memory of
M bits. The optimal control problem that we want to solve
is
N Z T
X
min
pn (t) + vn (t)Fn (t)dt
(8a)
p,r,s,q,v,F

n=1

0

s.t. ∀n ∈ N , m ∈ {N , N + 1}, t ∈ T , S ⊆ N

in [9], [15] respectively. We take a more general approach,
restricting the fixed wing UAV to moving at strictly positive
speeds and using Newtonian laws as a basis, as in [16]. The
function Ω(·) models the resistive forces acting on node Un
in accordance with the following assumption.
Assumption 1: The resistive forces acting on each
node Un may be modeled by the function x 7→ Ω(x) such
that x 7→ xΩ(x) is convex on x ∈ [0, ∞) and ∞ on
x ∈ (−∞, 0).
Comparatively, in the fixed wing model proposed in [17],
the drag force of a UAV traveling at constant altitude at subsonic speed v is
Ω(v) =

ρCD0 Sv 2
2L2
+
2
(πe0 AR )ρSv 2

(5)

where the first term represents parasitic drag and the second
term lift-induced drag. Parasitic drag is proportional to v 2 ,
where ρ is air density, CD0 is the base drag coefficient, and S
is the wing area. Lift induced drag is proportional to v −2 ,
where e0 is the Oswald efficiency, AR the wing aspect ratio
and L the induced lift [17]. For fixed-altitude flight, L must
be equal to the weight of the craft W = mg. The power
required to combat drag is the product of speed and force.
The propulsion force Fn (·) must satisfy the force balance
equation
Fn (t) − Ω(vn (t)) = mn v̇n (t),
(6)
where mn is the node mass, vn (t) is the speed and v̇n (t) is
the acceleration. The instantaneous power used for propulsion is the product vn (t)Fn (t), with the total propulsion
energy taken as the integral of this power over T . We assume
vn (t) ≥ 0, ∀t ∈ T , which is valid for fixed wing aircrafts.
Thrust is restricted to the range [Fmin , Fmax ].
C. General Continuous-Time Problem Formulation
We formulate the problem in continuous-time. At time t,
node Un , n ∈ N can transmit to any node Um , m ∈ {N , N +
1}\{n} at a non-negative data rate rnm (t) using transmission
power pnm (t). The sum power used in all outgoing transmissions from Un is denoted by pn (t). From this, the set of

fm (q(t), p(t), r(t), S \ {m}) ≤ 0
ṡn (t) =

N
X

rmn (t) −

N
+1
X

(8b)

rnm (t)

(8c)

sn (0) = Dn , sn (T ) = 0
qn (0) = Qn,init , qn (T ) = Qn,final

(8d)
(8e)

vn (0) = vn,init
Fn (t) = mn v̇n (t) + Ω(vn (t))

(8f)
(8g)

q̇n (t) = ζn vn (t)
Yn,min ≤ Yn (t) ≤ Yn,max

(8h)
(8i)

m6=n

m6=n

The cost function (8a) is the sum of nodal transmission and
propulsion energies. Constraint (8b) bounds the achievable
data rate to within the receiving nodes’ capacity region,
and (8c) updates the storage buffers with sent/received data.
Constraints (8d) act as initial and final constraints on the
buffers, while (8e)–(8h) ensure all nodes travel from their
initial to final destinations without violating a Newtonian
force-acceleration constraint; ζn ∈ {−1, 1} depending on
whether the position qn (t) decreases or increases, respectively, if the speed vn (t) ≥ 0. The final constraint (8i) places
simple bounds on the decision variables, given by
Yn,min , (0, 0, 0, −∞, Vmin , −∞, Fmin ),

(9a)

Yn,max , (Pmax , ∞, M, ∞, Vmax , ∞, Fmax ),

(9b)

where 0 ≤ Vmin ≤ Vmax and Fmin ≤ Fmax . The above optimal
control problem may then be fully discretized using optimal
control solvers, such as ICLOCS [18]. Before simulation
results are presented we prove that this problem admits an
equivalent convex form under certain conditions.
III. C ONVEXITY A NALYSIS
Efficient convex programming methods exist, which may
be used in real-time applications. We first show that the
nonlinear data rate constraints (8b) are convex in both
positions and transmission power. We then show that the
non-linear equality constraint (8g) may be substituted into the

cost function, convexifying the cost function. This, however,
turns the previously simple thrust bound Fmin ≤ Fn (t) into
a concave constraint, resulting in a convex OCP if thrust
bounds are relaxed. The absence of thrust bounds arises when
considering a fixed trajectory, or is a reasonable assumption
if the speed range is sufficiently small.
Lemma 1: The rate constraints (8b) are convex in powers
and positions for all path loss exponents α ≥ 1.
Proof: By writing the channel gains as an explicit
function of node positions, for receiver Um each of the
capacity region constraints is of the form
X
rn (t)−
n∈S

Bm log2

G X
pn (t)
1+ 2
2 +q
2 α
σ
(a2nm + δnm
nm (t) )
n∈S

!

≤ 0.
(10)

Since the non-negative weighted sum of functions preserves
convexity properties, without loss of generality we take S
to be a singleton, and drop subscripts. We also drop time
dependencies. The above function is the composition of two
functions φ1 ◦ φ2 (·), respectively defined as
φ1 (r, φ2 (·)) , r − B log2 (1 + φ2 (·)),
G
p
φ2 (p, q) , 2 2
.
σ (a + δ 2 + q 2 )α

(11)
(12)

The function (p, q) 7→ φ2 (p, q) is concave on the domain
R+ ×R. We show this by dropping constants and considering
the simpler function h(x, y) , xy −2α with Hessian
#
"
−2α
0
y −2α−1
2
(13)
∇ h(x, y) =
2α(2α−1)x ,
−2α
y −2α−1

y −2α−2

which is negative semi-definite, because it is symmetric with
non-positive sub-determinants. Therefore, φ2 is jointly concave in both power and the difference in positions over the
specified domain. φ1 is convex and non-increasing as a function of φ2 . Since the composition of a convex, non-increasing
function with a concave function is convex [19], all data rate
constraint functions are convex functions of (r, p, q).
The posynomial objective function is not convex over
the whole of its domain and the logarithmic data rate term
prevents the use of geometric programming (GP) methods.
Lemma 2: The following problem
Z T
min
Fn (t)vn (t)dt
(14a)
vn ,Fn

0

s.t. ∀t ∈ T

Fn (t) − Ω(vn (t)) = mn v̇n (t)
Fmin ≤ fm (t) ≤ Fmax

(14b)
(14c)

vn (t) ≥ 0

(14d)

vn (0) = vn,init

(14e)

of minimizing propulsion energy of a single node Un ,
subject to initial and final conditions, admits an equivalent

convex form for mappings vn (t) 7→ Ω(vn (t)) satisfying
Assumption 1 and force bounds (Fmin , Fmax ) = (−∞, ∞).
Proof: By noting that Fn (t) = Ω(vn (t)) + mn v̇n (t),
we move the equality into the cost function, rewriting the
problem as
(15)
min φ(vn ) s.t. (14c)–(14e),
vn

where
φ(vn ) ,

Z

|0

T

Z T
vn (t)v̇n (t)dt .
vn (t)Ω(vn (t))dt +
{z
} |0
{z
}
φ1 (vn )

(16)

φ2 (vn )

We now show that both φ1 (·) and φ2 (·) are convex.
Starting with the latter, by performing a change of variable,
the analytic cost is derived by first noting that φ2 (vn ) is the
change in kinetic energy
Z vn (T )

mn 2
φ2 (vn ) = mn
vdv =
vn (T ) − vn2 (0) , (17)
2
vn (0)
which is a convex function of vn (T ) subject to fixed initial
conditions (14d); in fact, it is possible to drop the vn2 (0)
term completely without affecting the argmin. By Assumption 1, vn (t) 7→ vn (t)Ω(vn (t)) is convex and continuous on
the admissible domain of speeds. Since integrals preserve
convexity, the total cost function φ(·) is also convex.
Removal of thrust F as a decision variable results in the
set
VF , {vn | Fmin ≤ Ω(vn (t)) + mn v̇n (t) ≤ Fmax }.

(18)

Even if Ω(·) is convex on the admissible range of speeds,
the lower bound represents a concave constraint not admissible within a convex optimization framework. Therefore,
dropping constraints on thrust results in a final convex
formulation of
Z T

mn 2
min
vn (t)Ω(vn (t))dt +
vn (T ) − vn2 (0) (19a)
vn
2
0
s.t. ∀t ∈ T
Vmin ≤ vn ≤ Vmax
(19b)
vn (0) = vn,init .

(19c)

Addition of bounds vn ∈ VF naturally results in a difference
of convex (DC) problem [20] that may be solved through
exhaustive or heuristic procedures.
Theorem 1: In the absence of constraints on thrust, the
general problem (8) admits an equivalent convex form.
Proof: Non-convexities in this formulation arise from
the posynomial function of speed v(t) and thrust Fm (t) in the
cost function (8a), the nonlinear force balance equality (8g),
and the capacity region data rate constraints (8b). The cost
function is a superposition of the energies used by each
node for propulsion and transmission. By noting that there
is no coupling between nodes or between propulsion and
transmission powers in this cost, the transformation used in
Lemma 2 may be used to eliminate the nonlinear equality. We
eliminate Fn (t) and v̇n (t) and move the nonlinear equality

into the objective function, simultaneously convexifying the
objective to get
"Z
#
N
T
X
mn 2
v (T )
pn (t) + vn (t)Ω(vn (t))dt +
min
p,r,s,q,v
2 n
0
n=1
s.t.

∀n ∈ N , m ∈ {N , N + 1}, t ∈ T , v ∈ V N , S ⊆ N

35
100

30

80

25

60

20
15

40

10
20
5
0

(8b)–(8f), (8h), Ỹn,min ≤ Ỹn (t) ≤ Ỹn,max

0
0

where Ỹn (t) , (pn (t), rn (t), sn (t), qn (t), vn (t)), and the
bounds Ỹn,min , and Ỹn,max are similarly changed. It follows
from Lemma 1 that all data rate constraints in (8b) are also
convex, therefore the whole problem is convex.
IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS

A. Single Node
A single mobile node U1 of mass 3 kg traveling at fixed
altitude a = 1000 m and lateral displacement δ = 0 m,
depicted in Figure 1, is considered first. In this section,
simulation results are presented for the problem of minimizing the total communication energy to offload all data
to U0 . This is compared to a water-filling solution [21]
for minimizing the transmission energy. Subscripts denoting
different nodes have been dropped in the remainder of this
section. Specifically, we use Ω(·) of the form

∞,
∀x ∈ (−∞, 0)
Ω(x) ,
(21)
CD1 x2 + CD2 x−2 , ∀x ∈ [0, ∞),

where CD1 = 9.26 × 10−4 is the parasitic drag coefficient
and CD2 = 2250 is the lift induced drag coefficient [17].
Simulation results are shown in Figure 3 for a storage
buffer initialized to D = 75 MB and speeds restricted in the
range [Vmin , Vmax ] = [30, 100] km/h. This results in a total
energy expenditure of 309.50 kJ, where 105.05 kJ is due to
transmission and 204.51 kJ is due to propulsion. Of this, only
48.01 kJ of extra propulsion energy is used to vary speed on
top of the base energy required to traverse the distance at a
constant speed. Furthermore, the problem would have been
infeasible if the node was restricted to a constant speed of
65 km/h. We note that, with the given parameterization, it is
possible to transmit up to 78 MB of data in the defined time
interval.
B [Hz]
105

M [GB]
1

Pmax [W]
100

α
1.5

400

600

800

1000

1200

(a) Optimal transmission power and propulsion force used by U1 .
10 5
10

35

8

30
25

The open source primal dual Interior Point solver Ipopt
v.3.12.4 has been used through the MATLAB interface.
Table I contains parameters common to the following experiments. Force constraints are relaxed in all experiments.
From [5], the speed of a typical UAV is in the range 30 to
460 km/h. All nodes are initialized to their average speeds
vn,init = (Vmax + Vmin )/2, We assume all nodes move in
symmetric trajectories around the AP such that Qn,final =
−Qn,init = (T /2)vn,init .

σ2 [W]
10−10

200

T [min]
20

TABLE I: Dynamic model parameters that have been used
across all simulation results.

6

20
15

4

10
2
5
0

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

(b) Associated achieved data rate and velocity profile of U1 .

Fig. 3: Simulation results for the single-node problem, with
trajectories shown as solid, and bounds shown as dashed
lines.

In comparison, if the speed of U1 is fixed, then the
maximum transmittable data is approximately 56 MB, using 120.00 kJ of transmission energy. Although considerably
more energy is used, the optimal power policy for a fixed
trajectory is characterized by a water-filling solution, an
equivalent proof of which may be found in [21]. This
problem results in a one dimensional search space, easily
solved through such algorithms as binary search.
B. Multiple Nodes
We now investigate the transmission energy problem for
two nodes, traveling in parallel trajectories at fixed speeds
such that Vmax = Vmin = 65 km/h, as depicted by the green
lines in Figure 1. Relaying is not allowed, as may be the case
if no bandwidth is allocated to U1 and U2 to receive each
other’s transmissions, equivalently turning them into pure
source nodes. Simulation results are presented in Figure 4.
U1 is closer to the AP at all times, and therefore is
advantaged in that it experiences more favorable channel
conditions. The disadvantaged node U2 transmits for a longer
duration due to the smaller relative change in its channel gain. The interior point algorithm converged after 42
iterations to a minimum energy of 52.707kJ and 26.77kJ
for U1 and U2 , respectively, for a starting data load of
D1 = D2 = 25 MB.
It is notable that the advantaged node uses considerably
more transmission energy than the disadvantaged node.
Referring to [22], which derives two-user optimal power
allocations that achieve arbitrary rate tuples on the boundary
of C we explain this as follows. From Figure 2, the optimal
rate pairs for given transmit powers p1 and p2 lie on the

R EFERENCES

100
80
60
40
20
0
200

400

600

800

1000

1200

(a) Transmit powers of nodes U1 and U2 .
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
200

400

600

800

1000

1200

(b) Associated transmission rates achieved by nodes U1 and U2 .

Fig. 4: Simulation results for the two-node transmission
power problem.
segment L3 . Equivalently, ∃̺ ∈ [0, 1] such that the rate
(∗) (∗)
pair for an arbitrary point R(∗) = (r1 , r2 ) on L3 is
given by the interpolation R(∗) = ̺ · R(1) + (1 − ̺) · R(2) .
We may interpret ̺ as being the priority assigned to each
transmitting node by the U0 when SIC is being carried out.
̺ = 1 means that data from U1 is being decoded second,
subject to a lower noise rate, while ̺ = 0 means the opposite
decoding order. We may think of the mapping t 7→ ̺(t) as
a time-varying priority. However, by calculating ̺(t) from
the optimum powers and rates seen in Figure 4, we find
that ̺(t) = 0, ∀t ∈ T such that p1 (t) > 0, p2 (t) > 0. In
other words, the disadvantaged node is always given priority,
which is why it uses less energy at the optimum, even though
it always experiences a worse channel gain.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
We have presented a general optimization framework
for joint control of propulsion and transmission energy for
single/multi-hop communication links in robotic networks.
The relaxation of transmission constraints to theoretic capacity bounds, with relatively mild assumptions on the mobility
model, results in a nonlinear but convex OCP. We showed
that optimizing over a fixed path, as opposed to a fixed
trajectory, increases the feasible starting data by at least 30%
for just a single node. For the fixed-trajectory two-node
MAC simulation, the optimal solution has been presented
and analyzed. Immediate extensions of this work include
higher fidelity models, and analysis of the relay network encompassed in problem (8). Considering the overarching goal
of real-time control, further developments will be closedloop analysis of the control strategy, and consideration of
the computational burden and energy expenditure [3], [23]
in the network.

[1] J. Ko, A. Mahajan, and R. Sengupta, “A network-centric UAV organization for search and pursuit operations,” in Aerospace Conference
Proceedings, 2002. IEEE, vol. 6, pp. 6–6, IEEE, 2002.
[2] S. Wang, A. Gasparri, and B. Krishnamachari, “Robotic message ferrying for wireless networks using coarse-grained backpressure control,”
in Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), 2013 IEEE, pp. 1386–1390,
IEEE, 2013.
[3] M. Thammawichai, S. P. Baliyarasimhuni, E. C. Kerrigan, and J. B.
Sousa, “Optimizing communication and computation for multi-UAV
information gathering applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.04091,
2016.
[4] P. Zhan, K. Yu, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Wireless relay communications with unmanned aerial vehicles: Performance and optimization,”
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 47,
no. 3, pp. 2068–2085, 2011.
[5] I. Bekmezci, O. K. Sahingoz, and Ş. Temel, “Flying ad-hoc networks
(FANETs): A survey,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1254–
1270, 2013.
[6] W. Zhao and M. H. Ammar, “Message ferrying: Proactive routing
in highly-partitioned wireless ad hoc networks,” in Distributed Computing Systems, 2003. FTDCS 2003. Proceedings. The Ninth IEEE
Workshop on Future Trends of, pp. 308–314, IEEE, 2003.
[7] Y. Yan and Y. Mostofi, “Robotic router formation in realistic communication environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 28,
no. 4, pp. 810–827, 2012.
[8] P. Sujit, S. Saripalli, and J. B. Sousa, “Unmanned aerial vehicle
path following: A survey and analysis of algorithms for fixed-wing
unmanned aerial vehicles,” IEEE Control Systems, vol. 34, no. 1,
pp. 42–59, 2014.
[9] Y. Yan and Y. Mostofi, “To go or not to go: On energy-aware
and communication-aware robotic operation,” IEEE Transactions on
Control of Network Systems, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 218–231, 2014.
[10] Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, and T. J. Lim, “Throughput maximization for
mobile relaying systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.02517, 2016.
[11] D. Tse and P. Viswanath, Fundamentals of wireless communication.
Cambridge university press, 2005.
[12] L. Ren, Z. Yan, M. Song, and J. Song, “An improved water-filling
algorithm for mobile mimo communication systems over time-varying
fading channels,” in Electrical and Computer Engineering, 2004.
Canadian Conference on, vol. 2, pp. 629–632, IEEE, 2004.
[13] D. Gunduz and E. Erkip, “Opportunistic cooperation by dynamic
resource allocation,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
vol. 6, no. 4, 2007.
[14] D. N. C. Tse and S. V. Hanly, “Multiaccess fading channels. I.
polymatroid structure, optimal resource allocation and throughput
capacities,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 44, no. 7,
pp. 2796–2815, 1998.
[15] Y. Mei, Y.-H. Lu, Y. C. Hu, and C. G. Lee, “Energy-efficient motion
planning for mobile robots,” in Robotics and Automation, 2004.
Proceedings. ICRA’04. 2004 IEEE International Conference on, vol. 5,
pp. 4344–4349, IEEE, 2004.
[16] U. Ali, H. Cai, Y. Mostofi, and Y. Wardi, “Motion and communication
co-optimization with path planning and online channel estimation,”
arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01672, 2016.
[17] Y. Zeng and R. Zhang, “Energy-efficient UAV communication with
trajectory optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 3747–3760, 2017.
[18] P. Falugi, E. Kerrigan, and E. Van Wyk, “Imperial College London Optimal Control Software User Guide (ICLOCS).”
http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/ICLOCS/, 2010.
[19] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization. Cambridge
university press, 2004.
[20] A. L. Yuille and A. Rangarajan, “The concave-convex procedure,”
Neural computation, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 915–936, 2003.
[21] S. Wolf, “An introduction to duality in convex optimization,” Network,
vol. 153, 2011.
[22] R. S. Cheng and S. Verdú, “Gaussian multiaccess channels with ISI:
Capacity region and multiuser water-filling,” IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 773–785, 1993.
[23] S. Nazemi, K. K. Leung, and A. Swami, “QoI-aware tradeoff between
communication and computation in wireless ad-hoc networks,” in
Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2016
IEEE 27th Annual International Symposium on, pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2016.

