1

Efficient 3D Placement of a UAV Using Particle
Swarm Optimization
Hazim Shakhatreh1 , Abdallah Khreishah1 , Ayoub Alsarhan2 , Issa Khalil3 , Ahmad Sawalmeh4 , and Noor Shamsiah
Othman4

arXiv:1705.09769v1 [cs.IT] 27 May 2017

1

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
2
Department of Computer Information System, Hashemite University
3
Qatar Computing Research Institute, Hamad bin Khalifa University
4
UNITEN, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract—Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can be used as
aerial wireless base stations when cellular networks go down.
Prior studies on UAV-based wireless coverage typically consider
an Air-to-Ground path loss model, which assumes that the users
are outdoor and they are located on a 2D plane. In this paper,
we propose using a single UAV to provide wireless coverage for
indoor users inside a high-rise building under disaster situations
(such as earthquakes or floods), when cellular networks are down.
We assume that the locations of indoor users are uniformly
distributed in each floor and we propose a particle swarm
optimization algorithm to find an efficient 3D placement of a
UAV that minimizes the total transmit power required to cover
the indoor users.
Index Terms—Unmanned aerial vehicles, Outdoor-to-Indoor
path loss model, particle swarm optimization.

I. I NTRODUCTION
UAVs can be used to provide wireless coverage during
emergency cases where each UAV serves as an aerial wireless
base station when the cellular network goes down [1]. They
can also be used to supplement the ground base station in
order to provide better coverage and higher data rates for the
users [2].
In order to use a UAV as an aerial wireless base station, the
authors in [3] presented an Air-to-Ground path loss model that
helped the academic researchers to formulate many important
problems. The authors of [4]–[8] utilized this model to study
the problem of UAV placement, where the objective is to
minimize the number of UAVs for covering a given area.
The authors of [4] described the tradeoff in this model. At
a low altitude, the path loss between the UAV and the ground
user decreases, while the probability of line of sight links also
decreases. On the other hand, at a high altitude line of sight
connections exist with a high probability, while the path loss
increases. However, it is assumed that all users are outdoor and
the location of each user can be represented by an outdoor 2D
point. These assumptions limit the applicability of this model
when one needs to consider indoor users.
Providing good wireless coverage for indoor users is very
important. According to Ericsson report [9], 90% of the time
people are indoor and 80% of the mobile Internet access traffic
also happens indoors [10], [11]. To guarantee the wireless
coverage, the service providers are faced with several key

Fig. 1: Parameters of the path loss model

challenges, including providing service to a large number of
indoor users and the ping pong effect due to interference from
near-by macro cells [12]–[14]. In this paper, we propose using
a single UAV to provide wireless coverage for users inside a
high-rise building during emergency cases, when the cellular
network service is not available.
In [15], we study the problem of efficient UAV placement,
where the objective is to minimize the total transmit power
required to cover the entire high-rise building. We consider
two cases of practical interest and provide efficient solutions
to the formulated problem under these cases. In the first case,
we find the minimum transmit power such that an indoor
user with the maximum path loss can be covered. In the
second case, we assume that the locations of indoor users are
symmetric across the dimensions of each floor and we propose
a gradient descent algorithm to find an efficient 3D placement
of a UAV. Our main contribution in this paper is to study
the problem of efficient UAV placement, where the objective
is to minimize the total transmit power required to cover the
entire high-rise building, when the locations of indoor users
are uniformly distributed in each floor, we propose a particle
swarm optimization algorithm for finding an efficient location
of the UAV.

2

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II,
we describe the system model and a path loss model suitable
for studying indoor wireless coverage. In Section III, we
formulate the problem of UAV placement with an objective of
minimizing the transmit power for covering the entire building.
In Section IV, we present the particle swarm optimization
algorithm and show how to find an efficient placement of
the UAV such that the total transmit power is minimized.
Finally, we present our numerical results in Section V and
make concluding remarks in Section VI.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
A. System Settings
Let (xU AV ,yU AV ,zU AV ) denote the 3D location of the UAV.
We assume that all users are located inside a high-rise building
as shown in Figure 1, and use (xi ,yi ,zi ) to denote the location
of user i. The dimensions of the high-rise building are [0, xb ]
× [0, yb ] × [0, zb ]. Also, let d3D,i be the 3D distance between
the UAV and indoor user i, let θi be the incident angle , and let
d2D,i be the 2D indoor distance of user i inside the building.

In this paper, we do not explicitly model interference, and
instead, implicitly model it as noise.
Let us assume that each indoor user has a channel with
bandwidth equals B/M , where M is the number of users
inside the building and the rate requirement for each user is
v. Then the minimum power required to satisfy this rate for
each user is given by:
Pt,i,min = (2

P =

where P is the UAV total transmit power. Since (2
is constant, our problem can be formulated as:

xU AV ,yU AV ,zU AV

(w log10 d3D,i + w log10 fGhz + g1 )+

(1)

(g2 + g3 (1 − cos θi )2 ) + (g4 d2D,i )
where LF is the free space path loss, LB is the building
penetration loss, and LI is the indoor loss. In this model,
we also have w=20, g1 =32.4, g2 =14, g3 =15, g4 =0.5 [16] and
fGhz is the carrier frequency (2Ghz). Note that there is a
key tradeoff in the above model when the horizontal distance
between the UAV and a user changes. When this horizontal
distance increases, the free space path loss (i.e., LF ) increases
as d3D,i increases, while the building penetration loss (i.e.,
LB ) decreases as the incident angle (i.e., θi ) decreases. Similarly, when this horizontal distance decreases, the free space
path loss (i.e., LF ) decreases as d3D,i decreases, while the
building penetration loss (i.e., LB ) increases as the incident
angle (i.e., θi ) increases.
III. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
Consider a transmission between a UAV located at
(xU AV ,yU AV ,zU AV ) and an indoor user i located at (xi ,yi ,zi ).
The rate for user i is given by:
Pt,i /Li
(2)
)
N
where B is the transmission bandwidth of the UAV, Pt,i is
the UAV transmit power to indoor user i, Li is the path loss
between the UAV and indoor user i and N is the noise power.
Ci = Blog2 (1 +

M
X
v.M
(2 B − 1) ? N ? Li ,

(4)

i=1

B. Outdoor-Indoor Path Loss Model

Li = LF + LB + LI =

(3)

− 1) ? N ? Li

Our goal is to find an efficient location of the UAV such that
the total transmit power required to satisfy the rate requirement
of each indoor user is minimized. The objective function can
be represented as:

min

The Air-to-Ground path loss model presented in [3] is
not appropriate when we consider wireless coverage for
indoor users, because this model assumes that all users are
outdoor and located at 2D points. In this paper, we adopt the
Outdoor-Indoor path loss model, certified by the ITU [16].
The path loss is given as follows:

v.M
B

LT otal =

M
X

v.M
B

−1)?N

Li

i=1

subject to
xmin ≤ xU AV ≤ xmax ,
ymin ≤ yU AV ≤ ymax ,
zmin ≤ zU AV ≤ zmax ,
LT otal ≤ Lmax
(5)
Here, the first three constraints represent the minimum and
maximum allowed values for xU AV , yU AV and zU AV . In the
fourth constraint, Lmax is the maximum allowable path loss
v.M
and equals Pt,max /((2 B − 1) ? N ), where Pt,max is the
maximum transmit power of UAV.
Finding the optimal placement of UAV is generally difficult
because the problem is non-convex. Therefore, in the next
section, we present the particle swarm optimization to find
an efficient solution for the formulated problem.
IV. E FFICIENT P LACEMENT OF UAV
Due to the intractability of the problem, we propose the
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [17], [18] to find an
efficient 3D placement of the UAV, when the locations of
indoor users are uniformly distributed in each floor. In [15], we
prove that zU AV =0.5zb and yU AV =0.5yb when the locations
of indoor users are symmetric across the dimensions of each
floor. Then, we use the gradient descent algorithm to find
xU AV that minimizes the transmit power required to cover
the building.
The particle swarm optimization algorithm starts with
(npop) random solutions and iteratively tries to improve the
candidate solutions based on the best experience of each
candidate (particle(i).best.location) and the best global experience (globalbest.location). In each iteration, the best location
for each particle (particle(i).best.location) and the best global
location (globalbest.location) are updated and the velocities

3

and locations of the particles are calculated based on them [7].
The velocity is given by:
particle(i).velocity = w ∗ particle(i).velocity+
c1 ∗ rand(varsize). ∗ (particle(i).best.location
−particle(i).location) + c2 ∗ rand(varsize).∗

(6)

(globalbest.location − particle(i).location)
where w is the inertia weight, c1 and c2 are the personal and
global learning coefficients, and rand(varsize) are random
positive numbers. Also, the location of each particle is updated
as:
particle(i).location = particle(i).location
+particle(i).velocity

(7)

The pseudo code of the PSO algorithm is shown in Algorithm 1. The number of iterations (maxit) in the algorithm
should be high enough to guarantee the stability.
Algorithm 1 Efficient UAV placement using PSO algorithm
Input:
The lower and upper bounds of decision variable
(varmin,varmax), Construction coefficients (κ,φ1 ,φ2 ), Maximum number of iterations (maxit), Population size (npop)
Initialiaztion:
φ=φ1 +φ1 , χ = 2κ/|2 − φ − (φ2 − 4φ)0.5 |
w=χ, c1=χφ1 , c2=χφ2 , globalbest.cost=inf
for i=1:npop
particle(i).location=unifrnd(varmin, varmax, varsize)
particle(i).velocity=zeros(varsize)
particle(i).cost=costfunction(particle(i).location)
particle(i).best.location=particle(i).location
particle(i).best.cost=particle(i).cost
if particle(i).best.cost < globalbest.cost
globalbest=particle(i).best
end if
end
PSO Loop:
for t=1:maxit
for i=1:npop
particle(i).velocity=w*particle(i).velocity+
c1*rand(varsize).*(particle(i).best.locationparticle(i).location)+c2*rand(varsize).*
(globalbest.location-particle(i).location)
particle(i).location=particle(i).location+
particle(i).velocity
particle(i).cost=costfunction(particle(i).location)
if particle(i).cost < particle(i).best.cost
particle(i).best.location = particle(i).location
particle(i).best.cost = particle(i).cost
if particle(i).best.cost < globalbest.cost
globalbest=particle(i).best
end if
end if
end
end

V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
First, we assume that each floor contains 20 users and the
locations of indoor users are symmetric across the dimensions
of each floor. Then, we apply the particle swarm optimization
algorithm to find an efficient 3D placement of a UAV. Table I
lists the parameters used in the numerical analysis. The particle
swarm optimization algorithm will converge to the efficient 3D
UAV placement when the maximum number of iterations is
equal to 50. On the other hand, the gradient descent algorithm
will converge to the efficient placement when the maximum
number of iterations is equal to 100 and the step tolerance is
equal to 0.01.
TABLE I: Parameters in numerical analysis
Hight of each floor

5 meters

Population size (npop)

50

Maximum number of iterations (maxit)

50

The carrier frequency fGhz

2Ghz

Number of users in each floor

20 users

(varmin,varmax)

(-1000,1000)

varsize

3

(κ,φ1 ,φ2 )

(1,2.05,2.05)

Fig. 2: The convergence speed of the GD algorithm for 200
meters building height
In Figure 2, we show the convergence speed of the gradient
descent algorithm when the building hight is 200 meters. The
3D efficient placement is (-24.7967, 25, 100) and the total path
loss is 7.6733 ∗ 104 . The convergence speed of the particle
swarm optimization algorithm when the building hight is 200
meters is shown in Figure 3. The 3D efficient placement
is (-24.7491, 24.9419, 100.0491) and the total path loss is
(7.6733 ∗ 104 ). Table II lists the simulation results for 250

4

TABLE II: Simulation Results
Algorithm

Distribution (locations of indoor users)

Building height

Horizontal building

Vertical building

zb

width xb

width yb

Efficient 3D placement

Efficient total
path loss(dB)

GD

symmetric across the dimensions of each floor

200

20

50

(-24.7967, 25, 100)

7.6733 ∗ 104

PSO

symmetric across the dimensions of each floor

200

20

50

(-24.7491, 24.9419, 100.0491)

7.6733 ∗ 104

GD

symmetric across the dimensions of each floor

250

20

50

(-35.2978, 25, 125)

9.7381 ∗ 104

PSO

symmetric across the dimensions of each floor

250

20

50

(-35.3077, 24.9162, 125.0544)

9.7381 ∗ 104

GD

symmetric across the dimensions of each floor

300

20

50

(-45.1131, 25, 150)

1.1837 ∗ 105

PSO

symmetric across the dimensions of each floor

300

20

50

(-45.1352, 25.0371, 149.7681)

1.1837 ∗ 105

GD

uniformly distributed in each floor

200

20

50

(-24.7254, 25, 100)

7.8853 ∗ 104

PSO

uniformly distributed in each floor

200

20

50

(-21.7995, 37.3891, 111.7901)

7.8645 ∗ 104

GD

uniformly distributed in each floor

250

20

50

(-33.8180, 25, 125)

9.9855 ∗ 104

PSO

uniformly distributed in each floor

250

20

50

(-32.9212, 28.7125, 124.0291)

9.9725 ∗ 104

GD

uniformly distributed in each floor

300

20

50

(-43.1170, 25, 150)

1.2154 ∗ 105

PSO

uniformly distributed in each floor

300

20

50

(-46.5898, 31.5061 ,143.8588)

1.2117 ∗ 105

GD

uniformly distributed in each floor

250

10

50

(-38.5210, 25, 125)

9.7413 ∗ 104

PSO

uniformly distributed in each floor

250

10

50

(-32.1042, 21.0174, 129.2663)

9.7252 ∗ 104

GD

uniformly distributed in each floor

250

30

50

(-29.3930, 25, 125)

1.0275 ∗ 105

PSO

uniformly distributed in each floor

250

30

50

(-25.5294, 4.9387, 138.7650)

1.0211 ∗ 105

GD

uniformly distributed in each floor

250

50

50

(-22.7119, 25, 125)

1.0753 ∗ 105

PSO

uniformly distributed in each floor

250

50

50

(-14.5488 17.3082 131.8940)

1.0696 ∗ 105

Fig. 3: The convergence speed of the PSO algorithm for 200
meters building height

meters and 300 meters building heights. As can be seen from
the simulation results, both of the algorithms converge to the
same 3D placement.
After that, we assume that each floor contains 20 users and

the locations of these users are uniformly distributed in each
floor.
In Figure 4, we show the convergence speeds of the gradient descent algorithm for different building heights. The
3D efficient placements and the total costs for 200 meter,
250 meter and 300 meter buildings are (-24.7254, 25, 100)
(7.8853 ∗ 104 ), (-33.8180, 25, 125) (9.9855 ∗ 104 ) and (43.1170, 25, 150)(1.2154∗105 ), respectively. The convergence
speeds of the particle swarm optimization algorithm for different building heights are shown in Figure 5. The 3D efficient
placements and the total costs for 200 meter, 250 meter
and 300 meter buildings are (-21.7995, 37.3891, 111.7901)
(7.8645 ∗ 104 ), (-32.9212, 28.7125, 124.0291) (9.9725 ∗ 104 )
and (-46.5898, 31.5061 ,143.8588)(1.2117 ∗ 105 ), respectively.
As can be seen from the simulation results, the PSO algorithm
provides better results, it provides total cost less than the cost
that the GD algorithm provides by (37dB-208dB). This is
because the PSO algorithm is designed for the case in which
the locations of indoor users are uniformly distributed in each
floor. On the other hand, the GD algorithm is designed for
the case in which the locations of indoor users are symmetric
across the dimensions of each floor.
We investigate the impact of different building widths (i.e.,
xb ) in Figures 6 and 7 using the GD and PSO algorithms. We
fix the building height to be 250 meters and vary the building
width. As can be seen from the simulation results, the PSO
algorithm provides better results, it provides total cost less than
the cost that the GD algorithm provides by (57dB-161dB).
Table II lists the simulation results. We can notice that when
the height of the building increases, the efficient horizontal
point xU AV increases. This is to compensate the increased

5

Fig. 4: The convergence speeds of the GD algorithm for different building heights

Fig. 5: The convergence speeds of the PSO algorithm for different building heights

building penetration loss due to an increased incident angle.
Also, when the building width increases, the efficient horizontal distance decreases. This is to compensate the increased
indoor path loss due to an increased building width.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we study the problem of providing wireless
coverage for users inside a high-rise building using a single
UAV. Due to the intractability of the problem, we propose the
particle swarm optimization algorithm to find an efficient 3D
placement of a UAV that minimizes the total transmit power
required to cover the indoor users when the same number of
users is uniformly distributed in each floor. In order to model
more realistic scenarios, we will consider different types of
user distribution in our future work. We will also study the
problem of providing wireless coverage using multiple UAVs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by the NSF under Grant
CNS-1647170.
R EFERENCES
[1] P. Bupe, R. Haddad, and F. Rios-Gutierrez, “Relief and emergency
communication network based on an autonomous decentralized uav
clustering network,” in SoutheastCon 2015. IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–8.
[2] 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 Communications (ICC), 2016 IEEE International Conference on.
IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–5.
[3] A. Al-Hourani, S. Kandeepan, and A. Jamalipour, “Modeling air-toground path loss for low altitude platforms in urban environments,” in
2014 IEEE Global Communications Conference. IEEE, 2014, pp. 2898–
2904.
[4] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Drone small cells
in the clouds: Design, deployment and performance analysis,” in IEEE
Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2015, pp. 1–6.

6

Fig. 6: The convergence speeds of the GD algorithm for different building widths

Fig. 7: The convergence speeds of the PSO algorithm for different building widths

[5] ——, “Optimal transport theory for power-efficient deployment of
unmanned aerial vehicles,” IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,, 2016.
[6] ——, “Efficient deployment of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles for
optimal wireless coverage,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01962, 2016.
[7] E. Kalantari, H. Yanikomeroglu, and A. Yongacoglu, “On the number
and 3d placement of drone base stations in wireless cellular networks,”
in IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, 2016, pp. 18–21.
[8] H. Shakhatreh, A. Khreishah, J. Chakareski, H. B. Salameh, and
I. Khalil, “On the continuous coverage problem for a swarm of uavs,”
in Sarnoff Symposium, 2016 IEEE 37th. IEEE, 2016, pp. 130–135.
[9] “Ericsson
report
optimizing
the
indoor
experience,
http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2013/real-performance-indoors.pdf,”
2013.
[10] “In-building wireless: One size does not fit all, http://www.alcatellucent.com/solutions/in-building/in-building-infographic.”
[11] “Cisco
service
provider
wi-fi:
A
platform
for
business
innovation
and
revenue
generation,
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/serviceprovider/service-provider-wi-fi/solution overview c22 642482.html.”

[12] “Using
high-power
das
in
high-rise
buildings,
http://www.commscope.com/docs/using-high-power-das-in-high-risebuildings-an-318376-ae.pdf.”
[13] “Coverage
solution
for
high-rise
building,
http://www.amplitec.net/products-2-coverage-solution-for-high-risebuilding.html.”
[14] S. Zhang, Z. Zhao, H. Guan, and H. Yang, “Study on mobile data
offloading in high rise building scenario,” in Vehicular Technology
Conference (VTC Spring), 2016 IEEE 83rd. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–5.
[15] H. Shakhatreh, A. Khreishah, and B. Ji, “Providing wireless coverage to
high-rise buildings using uavs,” in (IEEE International Conference on
Communications, IEEE ICC 2017 (accepted). IEEE, 2017.
[16] M. Series, “Guidelines for evaluation of radio interface technologies for
imt-advanced,” Report ITU, no. 2135-1, 2009.
[17] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm optimization,” in Neural
Networks, 1995. Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on, vol. 4.
IEEE, 1995, pp. 1942–1948.
[18] M. Clerc and J. Kennedy, “The particle swarm-explosion, stability, and
convergence in a multidimensional complex space,” IEEE transactions
on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 58–73, 2002.

