4.5 Article

Performance analysis and optimization of energy harvesting cognitive multi-hop relay network over mixed Rayleigh and double-Rayleigh fading channels

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.aeue.2022.154347

关键词

Outage probability; Energy harvesting cognitive multi-hop relay network; Hardware impairments; Double-Rayleigh fading channel; Chaotic dragonfly algorithm

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61971450]
  2. Hunan Provincial Science and Technology Project Foundation [2018TP1018]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province [2018JJ2533]
  4. Hunan Province College Students Research Learning and Innovative Experiment Project [S202110542056]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the outage performance of an energy harvesting underlay cognitive multihop relay network. The author accurately approximates the outage probability over fading channels and proposes a chaotic dragonfly algorithm to optimize energy harvesting and reduce outage probability.
In this paper, we investigate the outage performance of an energy harvesting underlay cognitive multihop relay network. In the network, energy-constrained secondary network (SN) nodes harvest energy from radio frequency signal of a power beacon (PB) node. The source node transmits information to destination node via multiple intermediate relay nodes by using a time division broadcast protocol, and the hardware impairments of SN nodes' transceiver are modeled. The outage performance of SN is analyzed and evaluated by accurately approximate and asymptotic closed-form expressions of outage probability (OP) over quasi-static mixed Rayleigh and double-Rayleigh fading channels. Additionally, due to the complexity of OP expression, a chaotic dragonfly algorithm (CDA) is proposed to jointly optimize energy harvesting ratio and PB node's abscissa, which can achieve OP minimization of SN. Extensive simulations demonstrate the correctness of theoretical analysis and the effectiveness of the proposed CDA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据