A comprehensive analysis of the achievable throughput in interference‐limited wireless‐powered networks with nonlinear energy harvester

Abstract

In this article, a comprehensive analysis of the achievable throughput in interference‐limited wireless‐powered networks (WPNs) with nonlinear energy harvester is presented. In particular, we consider a WPN in which an energy‐constrained transmitter access point (AP) harvests radio‐frequency (RF) energy transferred by a power beacon (PB) before data transmission to destination node. The AP and PB are equipped with multiantenna, whereas the destination node and interferers nodes are equipped with a single antenna. The channel between the PB and the AP experiences Nakagami‐m fading, while the channels between the AP and the destination, and the interferers nodes and the destination are assumed to follow ℱ composite fading channels. For this system, we derive novel analytical expressions for the achievable capacity under different transmission schemes, namely optimal rate adaptation, effective capacity, optimal power and rate adaptation, channel inversion with fixed rate, truncated channel inversion with fixed rate, and effective capacity. The derived expressions are then employed to evaluate the performance of the achievable throughput under different system and channel conditions. The analytical analyses are validated through numerical and Monte‐Carlo simulations.

IRDB: Towards enjoying spatial, rate, and beam‐channel diversity in wireless networks for multimedia applications

“…However, capacity limitation is a fundamental problem due to the interference arising from the wireless nature of the environment. 2,3 To avoid collision between interfering transmissions, an efficient MAC protocol must manage the channel access time. 4 Towards this goal, time division multiple access (TDMA) schedules interfering transmissions at different time slots, while non-interfering transmissions can be activated simultaneously.…”

“…For more clarification, reconsider the directional transmissions shown in Figures 4 to 6. Let assume that transmissions DT (18,1,6), DT (18,1,9), DT (18,2,6), DT (18,2,9), DT (18,4,6), DT (20,1,6), DT (20,3,6), DT (20,3,9), and DT (20,4,6) are rejected in the call admission control mechanism. To select the best DT(x, k, 𝜌 i ), IRDB calculates the IRBS metric for all feasible directional transmissions according to Table 2.…”

“…In this case, IRDB schedules DT (21,1,18) at time slots 10 to 33. In the next step, DT (14,3,24) occupies time slots 33 to 50 of the scheduling frame. Based on Figure 7A,B, there is an interference between DT (14,3,24) and both transmission DT (20,3,18) and DT(8, 3, 54) of tree T 1 .…”

“…In the next step, DT (14,3,24) occupies time slots 33 to 50 of the scheduling frame. Based on Figure 7A,B, there is an interference between DT (14,3,24) and both transmission DT (20,3,18) and DT(8, 3, 54) of tree T 1 . Subsequently, IRDB selects DT(8, 2, 54) as the next transmission.…”

“…Therefore, these two transmissions should not be active at the same scheduling slot. In the last step, DT (3,5,48) is chosen to complete the tree. As illustrated in Figure 7B, this directional transmission is similar to DT(3, 5, 48) of tree T 1 .…”