4.6 Article

Performance Analysis of Energy Harvesting Multi-Antenna Relay Networks With Different Antenna Selection Schemes

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 5654-5665

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2776934

关键词

Energy harvesting; decode-and-forward (DF) relaying; cooperative relay network; transmit antenna selection (TAS); outage probability

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [61501507]
  2. Jiangsu Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [BK20150719]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2017M610066]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we investigate the performance of three transmit antenna selection (TAS) schemes for an energy harvesting decode-and-forward relay cooperative network. In the network, the energy-limited relay first harvests the energy from the received signal with the power-splitting scheme, and then utilizes the harvested energy to forward the received signal to the destination. Specifically, exact analytical expressions for the outage probability of the considered network with three TAS schemes are derived for evaluating the impact of key parameters on the outage performance. In order to deeply extract insights, we further present tractable asymptotic outage probabilities for three TAS schemes to characterize the diversity order and coding gain in high signal-to-noise ratio regimes, respectively. In addition, we also analyze the impact of feedback delays on the performance of the optimal TAS scheme, which is quantified by the reduction of diversity order and coding gain. Numerical results sustained by Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that: 1) the second suboptimal TAS schemes achieve a comparable performance as the optimal TAS scheme with the reduced implementation cost; 2) the relay location has a great impact on the outage performance and the optimal power-splitting ratio; and 3) the feedback delay plays a critical role in determining the diversity order achieved by the considered system.

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

4.6
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