| Literature DB >> 35808530 |
Yang Cao1, Ye Zhong2, Chunling Peng2, Xiaofeng Peng2, Song Pan2.
Abstract
As an advanced technology, simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT), combined with the internet of things (IoT) devices, can effectively extend the online cycle of the terminal. To cope with the fluctuation of energy harvesting by the hybrid access points (H-AP), the energy cooperation base station is introduced to realize the sharing of renewable energy. In this paper, we study the SWIPT-enabled IoT networks with cooperation. Our goal is to maximize the energy efficiency of the system, and at the same time, we need to meet the energy harvesting constraints, user quality of service (QoS) constraints and transmission power constraints. We jointly solve the power allocation, time switching and energy cooperation problems. Because this problem is a nonlinear programming problem, it is difficult to solve directly, so we use the alternating variable method, the iterative algorithm is used to solve the power allocation and time switching problem, and the matching algorithm is used to solve the energy cooperation problem. Simulation results show that the proposed algorithm has obvious advantages in energy efficiency performance compared with the comparison algorithm. At the same time, it is also proved that the introduction of energy cooperation technology can effectively reduce system energy consumption and improve system energy efficiency.Entities:
Keywords: IoT; SWIPT; energy cooperation; energy efficiency; power allocation; time switching
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808530 PMCID: PMC9269765 DOI: 10.3390/s22135035
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1System model.
System Parameters.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| System bandwidth | 10 MHz |
| Noise power density | −174 dBm/Hz |
| Max transmit power of H-AP | 30 dBm |
| transmit power generation factor |
|
| H-AP Energy collection | 4–10 W |
Figure 2Convergence performance of different algorithm.
Figure 3Energy efficiency versus number of terminals for different algorithms.
Figure 4System energy consumption versus the number of H-APs for different algorithms.
Figure 5Energy efficiency versus the number of H-APs for different algorithms.
Figure 6Energy efficiency versus the QoS for different algorithms.
Figure 7The performance of the proposed algorithm with different collection threshold.
Figure 8System energy consumption versus the number of H-AP for different algorithms.
Figure 9Terminal collects energy versus the number of terminals for different algorithms.