| Literature DB >> 30999601 |
Dan Liu1, Zhigang Wen2, Xiaoqing Liu3, Shan Li4, Junwei Zou5.
Abstract
The simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT) technique has been considered as a promising approach to prolong the lifetime of energy-constraint wireless sensor networks (WSNs). In this paper, a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) full-duplex (FD) bidirectional wireless sensor network (BWSN) with SWIPT is investigated. Based on minimum total mean-square-error (total-MSE) criterion, a joint optimization problem for source and relay beamforming and source receiving subject to transmitting power and harvesting energy constraints is established. Since this problem is non-convex, an iterative algorithm based on feasible point pursuit-successive convex approximation (FPP-SCA) is derived to obtain a local optimum. Moreover, considering the scenarios in which source and relay nodes equipped with the same and different numbers of antennas, a low-complexity diagonalizing design-based scheme is employed to simplify each non-convex subproblem into convex problems and to reduce the computational complexity. Numerical results of the total-MSE and bit error rate (BER) are implemented to demonstrate the performance of the two different schemes.Entities:
Keywords: beamforming; bidirectional wireless sensor network (BWSN); full duplex (FD); multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO); simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT)
Year: 2019 PMID: 30999601 PMCID: PMC6515402 DOI: 10.3390/s19081827
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The system model of the multi-input multi-output (MIMO) full-duplex (FD) bidirectional wireless sensor network (BWSN) with energy harvesting (EH).
Figure 2The bit error rate (BER) versus signal noise ratio (SNR) for the proposed schemes under different .
The effects of variation.
| SNRs (dB) | FPP-SCA Scheme | Low-Complexity Scheme | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.2 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.66 | 0.62 | 0.59 |
|
| 0.01 | 0.003 | 9.3 × 10 | 0.52 | 0.47 | 0.45 |
|
| 1.8 × 10 | 1.0 × 10 | 0.0 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.31 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.19 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.09 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
Figure 3The total mean square error (total-MSE) versus the iterations for .
Figure 4BER versus SNR for 50 iterations.
The BER performance for different schemes when .
| SNRs (dB) | Unaided Scheme | FPP-SCA Scheme | Low-Complexity Scheme | SDR Scheme |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.44 | 0.39 | 0.44 | 0.42 |
|
| 0.26 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.20 |
|
| 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.047 | 0.05 |
|
| 0.03 | 0.003 | 0.0043 | 0.004 |
|
| 0.0027 | 5.0 × 10 | 4.5 × 10 | 9.0 × 10 |
|
| 3.5 × 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
The BER performance for different schemes when .
| SNRs (dB) | Unaided Scheme | FPP-SCA Scheme | Low-Complexity Scheme | SDR Scheme |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.80 | 0.25 | 0.77 | 0.28 |
|
| 0.67 | 0.06 | 0.62 | 0.07 |
|
| 0.52 | 0.003 | 0.47 | 0.005 |
|
| 0.38 | 2.5 × 10 | 0.33 | 4.0 × 10 |
|
| 0.27 | 0.0 | 0.22 | 0.0 |
|
| 0.18 | 0.0 | 0.11 | 0.0 |
|
| 0.12 | 0.0 | 0.04 | 0.0 |
Figure 5The antennas versus SNR for 50 iterations.
The effects of antennas variation.
| SNRs (dB) | FPP-SCA Scheme | Low-Complexity Scheme | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.39 | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.20 | 0.44 | 0.77 | 0.35 | 0.64 |
|
| 0.18 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.21 | 0.62 | 0.12 | 0.40 |
|
| 0.04 | 0.003 | 0.012 | 5.0 × 10 | 0.05 | 0.47 | 0.02 | 0.26 |
|
| 0.003 | 1.0 × 10 | 6.5 × 10 | 0.0 | 0.004 | 0.33 | 0.002 | 0.14 |
|
| 5.0 × 10 | 0.0 | 1.6 × 10 | 0.0 | 4.5 × 10 | 0.22 | 5.7 × 10 | 0.07 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.11 | 0.0 | 0.02 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.04 | 0.0 | 0.0045 |
Figure 6The comparison between the proposed network and existing BWSN .