1

Energy Trade-off in Ground-to-UAV
Communication via Trajectory Design
Dingcheng Yang, Member, IEEE, Qingqing Wu, Member, IEEE,

arXiv:1709.02975v1 [cs.IT] 9 Sep 2017

Yong Zeng, Member, IEEE, and Rui Zhang, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have a great potential for improving the performance of wireless
communication systems due to their wide coverage and high mobility. In this paper, we study a UAVenabled data collection system, where a UAV is dispatched to collect a given amount of data from a ground
terminals (GT) at fixed location. Intuitively, if the UAV flies closer to the GT, the uplink transmission
energy of the GT required to send the target data can be more reduced. However, such UAV movement
may consume more propulsion energy of the UAV, which needs to be properly controlled to save its
limited on-board energy. As a result, the transmission energy reduction of the GT is generally at the
cost of higher propulsion energy consumption of the UAV, which leads to a new fundamental energy
trade-off in Ground-to-UAV (G2U) wireless communication. To characterize this trade-off, we consider
two practical UAV trajectories, namely circular flight and straight flight. In each case, we first derive
the energy consumption expressions of the UAV and GT, and then find the optimal GT transmit power
and UAV trajectory that achieve different Pareto optimal trade-off between them. Numerical results are
provided to corroborate our study.

Index Terms
UAV communication, energy-efficient communication, energy trade-off, trajectory design.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with communication transceivers have found increasingly more applications in wireless communication, such as for information broadcasting,
relaying, data collection, etc [1]. This is mainly attributed to the flexible deployment and high
mobility of UAVs, as well as their line-of-sight (LoS) communication links with the ground
terminals (GTs) at moderate altitude. There are mainly two lines of research in the existing literature
on UAV-to-Ground (U2G)/Ground-to-UAV (G2U) communications, depending on whether the
D. Yang is with the Information Engineering School, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China. (e-mail:
yangdingcheng@ncu.edu.cn).
Q. Wu, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore 117583 (e-mail:{elewuqq, elezeng, elezhang}@nus.edu.sg).

2

z
O*

T%

r

z

T$

%

$

H

H

H

O

O

r

y

y

x

x

(a) Circular flight

(b) Straight flight

Fig. 1. A ground-to-UAV wireless communication system with circular or straight flight UAV trajectory.

UAV’s mobility is fully exploited or not. One line of works mainly focus on optimizing the
placement/deployment of static or quasi-static UAVs, to achieve the maximum communication
coverage of GTs [2]–[6]. The other research thrust aims to fully exploit the high mobility of
UAVs via their trajectory design and optimization, which brings a new degree of freedom in
optimizing the performance of wireless communication systems. To this end, joint communication
and UAV trajectory optimization has been studied for various wireless systems, such as mobile
relaying [7], multiple access channel (MAC) and broadcast channel (BC) [8], [9].
On the other hand, energy saving has been recognized as an important metric in designing
future wireless communication systems [10]. For instance, prior works [11]–[14] have studied
the energy minimization of the UAVs and/or GTs in various U2G/G2U communication systems.
However, these works only focus on minimizing the communication energy consumption as in the
conventional terrestrial wireless communication [10]. For UAVs in practice, their communication
energy consumption is usually much lower compared to propulsion energy consumption, which
is required to maintain the UAVs aloft and enable their mobility. Due to the limited on-board
energy of UAVs, their propulsion energy consumption becomes the dominant factor that needs to
be taken into account for achieving energy-efficient UAV communications [15]. To this end, the
authors in [15] developed a mathematical model for the propulsion energy consumption of fixedwing UAVs, based on which energy-efficient UAV trajectories were designed in various U2G/G2U
communication systems [15], [16].
In this paper, we study a G2U wireless communication system, where a UAV is dispatched
as a mobile data collector to gather a given amount of data from a fixed GT at known location.
Intuitively, the GT will consume less uplink transmission energy to send the data if the UAV can
fly closer to it to establish better G2U channels [11]. However, such movement usually requires
more propulsion energy consumption of the UAV. As a result, the transmission energy reduction of
the GT is generally at the cost of higher propulsion energy consumption of the UAV, which leads
to a new fundamental energy trade-off in G2U wireless communication. We aim to characterize

3

this new trade-off by taking into account the communication (including both the transmission and
circuit) power consumption of the GT as well as the propulsion power consumption of the UAV.
To gain the most essential insights, we focus our study on a point-to-point G2U communication
system by considering two practical UAV trajectories, namely circular flight and straight flight, as
shown in Fig. 1. The problem formulations and solutions in this paper can be extended to more
general setups with more UAVs/GTs and arbitrary UAV trajectories, in light of the recent results
on joint communication and UAV trajectory design in the literature (see, e.g., [7], [8]). For both
types of trajectories, we obtain the optimal GT transmit power and UAV trajectory that achieve
different Pareto optimal energy trade-off between GT and UAV. Numerical results are provided to
corroborate our study.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a G2U wireless communication system as shown in Fig. 1. A UAV is dispatched
as a mobile data collector to gather the data of total size Q bits from a GT at fixed location (e.g., a
sensor node in wireless sensor network). Without loss of generality, we assume that the horizontal
coordinate of the GT is w = [0, 0]T . Furthermore, we assume that the UAV flies at a constant
altitude H, which could correspond to the minimum altitude due to safety consideration. Further
denote by T the required mission completion time and q(t) ∈ R2×1 the UAV trajectory projected
onto the ground, 0 ≤ t ≤ T . Then the time-varying distance between the GT and UAV is given by
p
d(t) = H 2 + kq(t)k2 . We assume that the channel between the GT and the UAV is dominated

by LoS link. Thus, the channel power gain from the GT to the UAV at time t can be modelled as
β0
,
(1)
h(t) = β0 d−2 (t) = 2
H + ||q(t)||2
where β0 denotes the channel gain at the reference distance d0 = 1 meter.
We assume that throughout the time horizon T , the GT keeps uploading a file to the UAV with a

constant transmit power p1 1 , where p1 ≤ P̄1 with P̄1 denoting the maximum allowable transmission
power at the GT. As a result, the total amount of information bits that can be uploaded to the
UAV is a function of the time horizon T , GT transmit power p1 , and the UAV trajectory q(t),
which can be expressed as
T



p1 h(t)
dt
Q̄(T, p1 , q(t)) =B
log2 1 +
σ2
0
(2)


Z T
p1 γ 0
dt,
=B
log2 1 + 2
H + ||q(t)||2
0
where B is the system bandwidth in hertz (Hz), σ 2 denotes the noise power at the UAV receiver,
Z

and γ0 ,
1

β0
.
σ2

For simplicity, in this paper we do not consider adaptive power control of the GT based on the instantaneous channel h(t),

which can be employed to further improve the energy efficiency of the GT.

4

Furthermore, the total energy consumption of the GT to complete the file upload can be expressed
as
Ē1 (T, p1 ) = T (p1 + Pc ),

(3)

where Pc denotes the constant circuit power of the GT [10].
On the other hand, the energy consumption of the UAV mainly consists of two parts. The first
part is the communication-related energy consumption for circuitry and signal processing. The
other part is the propulsion energy consumption, which is required for the UAV to remain aloft
and move freely. In practice, the communication-related energy is much smaller than the propulsion
energy, and is thus ignored for the UAV in this paper. As derived in [15], the propulsion energy
consumption of fixed-wing UAVs is a function of its trajectory q(t), which can be expressed in a
generic form as
Ē2 (T, q(t)) =

Z

T

p2 (q(t))dt,

(4)

0

where p2 (q(t)) represents the UAV’s instantaneous propulsion power consumption that depends
on the its flying status at time instant t. Denote by P̄2 the maximum propulsion power that can
be provided by the UAV. We thus have p2 (q(t)) ≤ P̄2 , ∀t. It is observed from (2)–(4) that the
aggregated achievable communication throughput Q̄, the GT energy consumption Ē1 , and the UAV
energy consumption Ē2 are closely coupled via the three design parameters T , p1 , and q(t). In
the following, we investigate the required E1 and E2 for given Q̄.
III. GT-UAV E NERGY T RADE - OFF
For any given target file size Q to be uploaded by the GT, we define the GT-UAV energy
consumption region C as the union of all the feasible energy pairs (E1 , E2 ) that are sufficient to
complete the file upload. Mathematically, we have
(
[
C,
(E1 , E2 ) :
T,p1 ,q(t)

E1 = T (p1 + Pc ), E2 =

Z

T

p2 (q(t))dt,

0

)

Q̄(T, p1 , q(t)) ≥ Q, p1 ≤ P̄1 , p2 (q(t)) ≤ P̄2 , ∀t .

(5)

Of particular interest is the Pareto boundary of C, which is defined as the set of all energy pairs
(E1 , E2 ) at which it is impossible to decrease one of them without increasing the other. The
corresponding design of (T, p1 , q(t)) is referred to as a Pareto optimal solution.
Lemma 1: At the Pareto optimal solution, we always have
Q̄(T, p1 , q(t)) = Q.

(6)

5

Proof: Lemma 1 can be shown by contradiction. Suppose that at the Pareto optimal solution we
have Q̄(T, p1 , q(t)) > Q, then we can reduce the operation time T so that the energy consumption
of both the GT and UAV are reduced. Since this violates the Pareto optimality, the lemma is
proved.
In the following two subsections, we study the Pareto boundary of C by considering two types
of UAV trajectories that are of high practical interests. The first one is the circular flight where the
UAV flies around the GT following a circular trajectory. The second one is steady straight flight,
where the UAV flies from a given initial location qA ∈ R2×1 to a final location qB ∈ R2×1 along
the line connecting them with a constant speed.
A. Circular Flight
For fixed-wing UAVs, circular flight is a practical trajectory that offers a flexible trade-off
between UAV’s energy consumption and the communication throughput via designing the circle
radius r and flying speed V [15]. In this section, we characterize the new GT-UAV energy trade-off
with circular UAV trajectory, as shown in Fig. 1(a). First, it is noted that with a circular trajectory
of radius r and the GT at the center of its projection on the ground, we have kq(t)k = r, ∀t. As
a result, the communication throughput (2) reduces to

Q̄(T, p1 , r) = BT log2 1 +


p1 γ 0
.
(7)
H 2 + r2
Furthermore, it follows from [15] that for fixed-wing UAV with circular trajectory of radius r and

constant speed V , the required instantaneous propulsion power can be expressed as


c2
c2
(8)
p2 (q(t)) = p2 (r, V ) = c1 + 2 2 V 3 + ,
g r
V
where c1 and c2 are the parameters depending on the aircraft’s weight, wing area, air density, etc.
It is observed from (3) and (7) that for circular UAV flight, the UAV speed V neither affects the
GT energy consumption nor the communication throughput. Thus, it should be chosen to minimize
the UAV’s energy consumption, or equivalently the instantaneous UAV propulsion power p2 (r, V )
in (8). For any given circular radius r, the optimal UAV speed for minimizing (8) can be obtained
as [15]
⋆

V (r) =



c2
3 (c1 + c2 / (g 2r 2 ))

1/4

,

(9)

and the corresponding minimum UAV propulsion power is

1/4
 3/4
c2
⋆
−3/4
1/4
c1 + 2 2
p2 (r) = 3
+3
c2
.
(10)
g r
Therefore, with circular trajectory, the UAV’s energy consumption reduces to a function of the
mission completion time T and the circle radius r, i.e.,
Ē2 (T, r) = T p⋆2 (r).

(11)

6

Note that to ensure the maximum UAV propulsion power constraint p⋆2 (r) ≤ P̄2 is satisfied, it
1/4 3/4

follows from (10) that we must have P̄2 > (3−3/4 + 31/4 )c1 c2

(by taking r → ∞ in [10]), and

the UAV’s trajectory radius cannot be smaller than a certain threshold, i.e.,
s
c2
1
.
r ≥ rmin ,
4
P̄2
g
−3/4
1/3 4 3 − c1
(3

+3

(12)

) c2

To characterize the Pareto boundary (E1 , E2 ) of C under circular trajectory, we obtain the following
set of equations based on (3), (6),
 (7), and (11):
E1 = T (p1 + Pc ),







E2 = T p⋆2 (r),






p1 γ 0
= Q,
BT log2 1 + 2

H + r2





r ≥ rmin ,





p1 ≤ P̄1 .
It can be observed from (14) that for fixed T , the decrease of E2 implies the increase of

(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
r. As

a result, it follows from (15) that, p1 needs to be increased and hence E1 in (13) will increase.

This clearly suggests that there exists a GT-UAV energy trade-off for any given operation time
T . Before characterizing the complete Pareto boundary of C based on (13)–(17), we first obtain
its two extreme points corresponding to the minimum energy consumption of either the UAV or
the GT, which are denoted by (E1,min , E2,max ) and (E1,max , E2,min ), respectively. By eliminating
T based on (13) and (15), E1,min can be obtained by solving the following optimization problem
Q(p1 + Pc )
,
E1,min = min
p1 γ0
p1 ,r B log
2 1 + H 2 +r 2
s.t. p1 ≤ P̄1 , r ≥ rmin.

(18)

It follows that at the optimal solution to (18), we should have r = rmin . In other words, from the
perspective of minimizing the GT’s energy consumption, the UAV should hover around the GT
with the minimum possible circle radius, as expected. As a result, (18) reduces to the conventional
power optimization problem for energy-efficient point-to-point communication [17], which is a
quasiconvex problem and hence can be efficiently solved with bisection search over p1 . In the
special case that Pc = 0, the optimal power allocation for GT energy minimization is p1 → 0, as
shown in [17]. In this case, it takes an infinitely long time to complete the file uploading. With r
and p1 obtained from (18), the corresponding energy consumption of the UAV, denoted as E2,max ,
can be accordingly computed from (14) and (15). Similarly, to obtain the other extreme point
where the UAV achieves the minimum energy consumption, we have the following optimization

7

problem based on (14) and (15)
E2,min = min
p1 ,r

Qp⋆2 (r)
,
γ0
B log2 (1 + Hp21+r
2)

s.t. p1 ≤ P̄1 , r ≥ rmin.

(19)

At the optimal solution to (19), we should have p1 = P̄1 . As a result, (19) reduces to a univariate
optimization problem with respect to r, which can be solved via one-dimensional search. With r
and p1 from (19), E1,max can be accordingly computed from (13) and (15).
Next, we characterize the complete Pareto boundary of C based on (13)–(17). To this end, by
first solving r and p1 based on (14) and (15), we have
s
c2
1
r = r(E2 , T ) ,
4
E
2
g
4 −3/4
1/3
T (3

+3

)4 c32

− c1

≥ rmin ,

(20)


H 2 + r 2 (E2 , T )  Q
2 BT − 1 ≤ P̄1 .
γ0
By substituting the above r and p1 into (13), we have
p1 = p1 (E2 , T ) ,

E1 = f (E2 , T ) ,

1
T H 2 + 2
g 4

c2
E24
T (3−3/4 +31/3 )4 c32

− c1



2

Q
BT

−1

γ0



+ Pc  .

(21)

(22)

In other words, for circular UAV flight, any Pareto optimal energy pair (E1 , E2 ) must satisfy the
closed-form expression given by (22), which is parameterized by the UAV operation time T . For
any given T , the function E1 = f (E2 , T ) is a monotonically decreasing function with respect
to E2 , which clearly shows the trade-off between E1 and E2 . Furthermore, to satisfy the UAV’s
propulsion power constraint, the operation time T must be in the interval
!
"
E2
E2
.
,
T ∈
3/4
P̄2 (3−3/4 + 31/4 )c1/4
1 c2

(23)

To characterize the complete Pareto boundary of C, for any given E2 ∈ [E2,min , E2,max ], the
energy consumption of the GT E1 is minimized based on (22) by optimizing the operation time
T , i.e.,
min E1 = f (E2 , T )
T

s.t.

(24)
(20), (21), (23).

Problem (24) is a univariate optimization problem, which can be efficiently solved via onedimensional search.
B. Straight Flight
In this subsection, we consider another practical trajectory, where the UAV flies from a given
initial location qA to a final location qB with constant speed V , as shown in Fig. 1(b). In this

8

D
,
V

case, the operation time of interest is T =

where D = kqB − qA k is the distance between qA

and qB . Furthermore, the UAV’s trajectory q(t) can be expressed as
D
q(t) = qA + tV ~d, 0 ≤ t ≤ ,
(25)
V
−qA
is the unit-norm vector representing the flying direction from qA to qB . As a
where ~d = qBD
result, the time-varying distance between the GT and the UAV can be expressed as
q
p
2
d(t) = kq(t)k2 + H 2 = (V t + c3 )2 + H ,

(26)

2

where c3 , qTA ~d and H , kqA k2 − c23 + H 2 . It then follows from (2) that the aggregated
throughput with straight UAV flight reduces to a bivariate function in terms of V and p1 , which
can be expressed as
Q̄(p1 , V ) =B

Z

D/V

1+

log2
0

BG(p1 )
,
V ln 2
where G(p1 ) , F (D + c3 ) − F (c3 ) with

p1 γ 0
2

H + (V t + c3 )2

=

F (z) ,

Z

dt,
(27)


ln 1 +


= z ln 1 +

!

p 1 γ0
2



H + z2

p 1 γ0
2

H + z2

dz

− 2H tan−1





z
H


(28)

q
z
2
.
+ 2 H + p1 γ0 tan−1  q
2
H + p 1 γ0

It can be verified that G(p1 ) is a strict monotonically increasing function, and hence its inverse
function exists, which is denoted as G−1 (·). Furthermore, it follows from [15] that for a fixed-wing
UAV with steady straight flight of constant speed V , the required instantaneous propulsion power
can be expressed as p2 (q(t)) = p2 (V ) = c1 V 3 + cV2 , where c1 and c2 are the same as those in (8).
As a result, the UAV’s energy consumption reduces to a univariate function in terms of the speed
V , i.e.,

c2 
D
2
(29)
Ē2 (V ) = p2 (V ) = D c1 V + 2 .
V
V
To characterize the Pareto boundary of C with straight trajectory, we obtain the following set
of equations based on (3), (6), (27),and (29):
D


(p1 + Pc ),
(30)
E
=

1

V



c2 

2


E
=
D
c
V
+
,
(31)
2
1


V2

BG(p1 )
= Q,
(32)


V ln 2





p1 ≤ P̄1 ,
(33)






p2 (V ) ≤ P̄2 .
(34)
From (31), it can be inferred that there exists one unique speed V for minimizing E2 . Meanwhile, it

9

follows from (32) that for any given Q, p1 increases with V . As such, from (30), there exists another
speed V for minimizing E1 , which is in general different from that for minimizing E2 . Thus, V
must be properly chosen to balance the energy consumptions of the UAV and GT. Similar to the
circular trajectory case, we first derive the two extreme points (E1,min , E2,max ) and (E1,max , E2,min )
in the UAV-GT energy trade-off. By eliminating V based on (30) and (32), E1,min can be obtained
by solving the following optimization problem
DQ ln 2
(p1 + Pc ),
E1,min = min
p1 BG(p1 )


BG(p1 )
s.t. p1 ≤ P̄1 , p2
≤ P̄2 .
(35)
Q ln 2
Then, E1,min can be obtained by one-dimensional search over p1 . The corresponding E2,max can
be obtained from (31) and (32) with p1 given in (33). Similarly, by eliminating V based on (31)
and (32), E2,min can be obtained by solving the following optimization problem

2
2 !

BG(p1 )
Q ln 2
E2,min = min D c1
+ c2
p1
Q ln 2
BG(p1 )


BG(p1 )
≤ P̄2 .
(36)
s.t. p1 ≤ P̄1 , p2
Q ln 2
Then, E2,min can be obtained by one-dimensional search over p1 . The corresponding E1,max can
be obtained from (30) and (32) with p1 in (36).
Next, we characterize the complete Pareto boundary of C based on (30)–(34). To this end, for
any given E2 , we aim to minimize E1 while ensuring that all conditions in (30)–(34) are satisfied.

By solving p1 from (32), we obtain p1 = G−1 QVBln 2 . In addition, it follows from (31) that for
√
any given E2 ≥ 2D c1 c2 , there exist two different values of the UAV speed V that achieve the
same energy consumption E2 , which are given by
s
p
E2 + E22 − 4c1 c2 D 2
V1 = g1 (E2 ) ,
,
(37)
2Dc1
s
p
E2 − E22 − 4c1 c2 D 2
V2 = g2 (E2 ) ,
.
(38)
2Dc1
Note that to ensure that (33) and (34) are satisfied, we have the following equivalent conditions
with respect to E2 :

Qgk (E2 ) ln 2
≤ P̄1 , k = 1, 2,
(39)
G
B


c2
2
≤ P̄2 , k = 1, 2.
(40)
D c1 gk (E2 ) + 2
gk (E2 )
By substituting p1 and V = gk (E2 ), k = 1, 2, into (30), we obtain two possible values for E1 for
−1



any given E2 , which are given in closed-form as




Qgk (E2 ) ln 2
D
−1
G
+ Pc , k = 1, 2.
(41)
E1,k =
gk (E2 )
B
As a result, for any given E2 ∈ [E2,min , E2,max ] that satisfies both (39) and (40), the corresponding

10

Pareto Boundary for P =10mW
c

70

Pareto Boundary for P =50mW

Minimum GT’s Energy Consumption E1,min for Pc=50mW

1

GT’s Energy Consumption E (Joule)

c

Minimum GT’s Energy Consumption E1,min for Pc=10mW

60

Minimum UAV’s Energy Consumption E

2,min

50
40
30
20
10
0

20

40
60
80
100
120
140
UAV’s Energy Consumption E2 (KJoule)

160

180

Fig. 2. GT-UAV energy trade-off with circular trajectory and Pc = 50mW or 10mW .

Pareto optimal point is obtained by simply comparing the two GT energy consumption values in
(41), i.e., E1 = min{E1,1 , E1,2 }.
IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
This section provides numerical results to verify the GT-UAV energy trade-off developed in
this paper. Unless otherwise stated, the parameters are set as follows: H = 100 m, B = 1 MHz,
σ 2 = −110 dBm, γ0 = −50 dB, c1 = 9.26 × 10−4, c2 = 2250, P̄2 = 1500 W, and P̄1 = 0.5 W.
We first consider the circular flight, where the amount of data to be collected by the UAV
is Q̄ = 600 Mbits(Mb). The energy trade-off curves between the GT and UAV are shown in
Fig. 2 for two different circuit power levels Pc = 50mW and 10mW. It is observed that for
both cases, as the UAV’s energy consumption E2 increases, the GT’s energy consumption E1
decreases correspondingly, which demonstrates the fundamental trade-off for the GT-UAV energy
consumptions, and such a trade-off relationship is more substantial for smaller Pc . For example,
for Pc = 10mW, by increasing the UAV’s energy from 18 KJ to 40 KJ, the GT energy consumption
would be significantly reduced by about 3-4 times. This is beneficial for energy-limited GTs.

11

8.2

80

Energy Tradeoff under UAV Flight with V1

GT’s Energy Consumption E1 (Joule)

GT’s Energy Consumption E1 (Joule)

8.4

Energy Tradeoff under UAV Flight with V2

8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7

Pareto Boundary

6.8
6.6
8

8.5
9
9.5
UAV’s Energy Consumption E

2

Energy Tradeoff under UAV Flight with V1

70

Energy Tradeoff under UAV Flight with V2

60
50
40
Pareto Boundary

30
20
8

10
10.5
(KJoule)

10
12
14
16
18
20
UAV’s Energy Consumption E2 (KJoule)

(a) Q̄ = 30Mb

22

(b) Q̄ = 100Mb

Fig. 3. GT-UAV energy trade-off with straight trajectory and Q̄ = 30Mb or 100Mb.

2

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
8

GT Transmit Power under UAV flight with V
1

1.4

GT Transmit Power under UAV Flight with V

GT Transmit Power (Watts)

0.08

1.6

GT Transmit Power under UAV Flight with V1

1

GT Transmit Power p (Watts)

0.09

GT Transmit Power under UAV flight with V2
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Maximum GT Transmit Power p1 = 0.5W
0.4
0.2

8.5
9
9.5
UAV’s Energy Consumption E

2

10
(KJoule)

10.5

0

8

(a) Q̄ = 30Mb

10
12
14
16
18
20
UAV’s Energy Consumption E2 (KJoule)

22

(b) Q̄ = 100Mb

Fig. 4. GT transmit power with straight trajectory and Q̄ = 30 Mb or 100 Mb

Next, we consider the case of straight flight, where the UAV’s initial and final locations are
respectively set as qA = [−1000, 1000]T and qB = [1000, −1000]T in meter, Pc = 50mW and Q̄
is set as 30 Mb or 100 Mb. The energy trade-off curves for these two different data collection
requirements are shown in Fig. 3. Note that in the figure, V1 and V2 denote the two different
UAV speeds that both result in the same UAV energy consumption, as given in (37) and (38),
respectively. It is observed that the two different UAV flight speeds can achieve the Pareto boundary
under different data transmission requirements. Specifically, for Q̄ = 30 Mb, it is observed that
the larger speed V1 gives the Pareto boundary as shown in Fig. 3(a). This is expected since for
this setup, the circuit power of the GT (i.e. Pc = 50 mW) is comparable to its transmit power, as
shown in Fig. 4(a). As a result, the larger UAV flight speed V1 essentially decreases the required
UAV traveling and file upload time, and hence saves the significant circuit energy consumption

12

of the GT. On the other hand, for the case with larger Q̄ = 100 Mb, the GT’s transmit power is
much larger than its circuit power, as shown in Fig. 4(b). This implies that the GT’s transmission
energy in this case is more significant than its circuit energy consumption, and should have a
higher priority to be minimized. Thus, the UAV should fly with a lower speed V2 so as to have a
longer transmission time, and hence lower transmit power. Thus, in this case, V2 corresponds to
the Pareto-optimal speed as shown in Fig. 3(b).
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we investigate a new fundamental energy trade-off between the UAV and its served
GT in a G2U wireless communication system. By deriving the propulsion energy consumption
of the UAV and the communication energy consumption of the GT under two practical UAV
trajectories, namely circular flight and straight flight, we characterize their Pareto optimal tradeoffs and the corresponding optimal GT transmit power and UAV trajectory designs. We hope that
the results of this paper shed new light on designing energy-efficient UAV communications in
future wireless systems.
R EFERENCES
[1] Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, and T. J. Lim, “Wireless communications with unmanned aerial vehicles: opportunities and challenges,”
IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 36–42, May 2016.
[2] 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] A. E.-K. R. I. Bor-Yaliniz and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Efficient 3-D placement of an aerial base station in next generation
cellular networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), 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] M. M. Azari, F. Rosas, K.-C. Chen, and S. Pollin, “Optimal UAV positioning for terrestrial-aerial communication in presence
of fading,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), Dec. 2016.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] Q. Wu, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang, “Joint trajectory and communication design for UAV-enabled multiple access,” in Proc. IEEE
Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), 2017, to appear, [Online] Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01765.
[9] ——, “Joint trajectory and communication design for multi-UAV enabled wireless networks,” submitted to IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., 2017, [Online] Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.02723.
[10] Q. Wu, G. Y. Li, W. Chen, D. W. K. Ng, and R. Schober, “An overview of sustainable green 5G networks,” IEEE Wireless
Commun., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 72–80, Aug. 2017.
[11] C. Zhan, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang, “Energy-efficient data collection in UAV enabled wireless sensor network,” submitted to
IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., 2017, Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00221.
[12] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Optimal transport theory for power-efficient deployment of unmanned
aerial vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun.(ICC), May 2016.

13

[13] M. Alzenad, A. El-keyi, F. Lagum, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “3D placement of an unmanned aerial vehicle base station
(UAV-BS) for energy-efficient maximal coverage,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 434–437, Aug. 2017.
[14] K. Li, W. Ni, X. Wang, R. P. Liu, S. S. Kanhere, and S. Jha, “Energy-efficient cooperative relaying for unmanned aerial
vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1377–1386, Jun. 2016.
[15] 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.
[16] S. Jeong, O. Simeone, and J. Kang, “Mobile edge computing via a UAV-mounted cloudlet: Optimization of bit allocation
and path planning,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Techn., Early Access, May 2017.
[17] G. Miao, “Energy-efficient uplink multi-user MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 2302–2313, May
2013.

