CAN CELL PHONE TOWER GIVE CHARGING TO
YOUR MOBILE ?
J.JENIFER RIZANI , S. RASMA , A.REMIYA
SECOND YEAR CSE
DMI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
NAGERCOIL
Abstract— This paper investigates the optimal resource allo-
cation in wireless powered communication network with user
cooperation, where two single-antenna users first harvest energy
from the signals transmitted by a multi-antenna hybrid access
point (H-AP) and then cooperatively send information to the
H-AP using their harvested energy. To explore the system infor-
mation transmission performance limit, an optimization problem
is formulated to maximize the weighted sum-rate (WSR) by
jointly optimizing energy beamforming vector, time assignment,
and power allocation. Besides, another optimization problem is
also formulated to minimize the total transmission time for given
amount of data required to be transmitted at the two sources.
Because both problems are non-convex, we first transform them
to be convex by using proper variable substitutions and then
apply semi-definite relaxation to solve them. We theoretically
prove that our proposed methods guarantee the global optimum
of both problems. Simulation results show that system WSR and
transmission time can be significantly enhanced by using energy
beamforming and user cooperation. It is observed that when the
total amount of information of two users is fixed, with the increase
of the information amount of the user relatively farther away
from the H-AP, the transmission time of the user cooperation
scheme decreases while that of the direct transmission increases.
Besides, the effects of user position on the system performances
are also discussed, which provides some useful insights.
Index Terms— Wireless powered communication net-
works, energy beamforming, time assignment, semidefinite
programming.
I. I NTRODUCTION
R ECENTLY, radio-frequency (RF) energy harvesting
(EH) has attracted much interest due to its capabil-
ity of providing reliable and perpetual energy sources for
energy-constrained wireless networks, including Internet of
Things (IoT) and wireless sensor networks (WSNs) [1]–[7].
It was reported that 27μW of wireless power can be harvested
from RF signals at distances of 10 meters over 915 MHz [8].
Since RF signals simultaneously carry energy and
information, simultaneous wireless information and power
transfer (SWIPT) was proposed as a promising solution to
energy-constrained networks [9]–[11]. In [9] and [10], ideal
SWIPT receiver was assumed to harvest energy and receive
information from the same signals. In order to make SWIPT
workable, several practical receiver architectures were pro-
posed in [11]. So far, SWIPT has been widely studied in
various wireless systems, see e.g. [12]–[25].
Recently, another important application of RF EH, i.e., wire-
less powered communication network (WPCN), was pre-
sented [4], where some wireless nodes harvest energy and
use the harvested RF energy to transmit/decode information
to/for other nodes. In WPCNs, RF energy sources can be either
ambient RF sources (e.g., TV towers, WI-FI signals) or dedi-
cated RF energy transmitters (e.g., power stations). Compared
with ambient RF sources, dedicated ones are controllable,
which are able to provide more stable energy supply for
EH communication devices. Besides, more energy can be
harvested at wireless devices, because the dedicated power
station is only responsible for energy transfer in WPCNs.
Up to now, a lot of works on WPCNs with dedi-
cated power station can be found in the literature, see
e.g. [26]–[28], [31]–[37]. In [26]–[28], multi-user systems
were studied and the total throughput of all users were max-
imized. Specifically, in [26], a single-antenna hybrid access
point (H-AP)-assisted WPCN was investigated, where the
H-AP was with steady energy supply and it first transferred
energy to a group of users and then the users transmitted
information to the H-AP by using the harvested energy. In [27],
a WPCN with heterogeneous users was considered, where
some users had to harvest energy from H-AP and the others
were with sufficient energy supply. In [28], the multi-carrier
full-duplex OFDM WPCN was studied. As is known, in WSNs
and IoT systems, it is sometimes not available to equip multi-
ple antennas at small-size nodes, in this case, user cooperation
can be employed to exploit the cooperative diversity to
enhance system information transmission efficiency [29], [30].
In [31], system throughput was maximized for a three-node
relaying network, where a source and a relay harvest energy
from a dedicated multi-antenna power beacon and then trans-
mit information to a destination via cooperative relaying mode.
In [32] and [33], outage performance was analyzed for a three-
node WPCN, where one source and one relay first harvested
energy from a H-AP and then the source transmitted informa-
tion via the relay over a two-hop relaying channel to H-AP.
In their work, the relay node itself had no own information to
transmit. In [34], user cooperation was introduced into H-AP-
assisted WPCNs and the system WSR was maximized by
jointly optimizing the time assignment and power allocation,
where two users cooperatively transmitted information to a
common H-AP by using their harvested energy from the H-AP.
In [35], the max-min rate fairness was studied for two-user
WPCNs, where two users were firstly wireless powered by
a power station and then they helped each other to transmit
information to a common destination. However, in these works
mentioned above, only single antenna was employed at the
H-AP, so no multi-antenna technology was involved.
As energy beamforming technique is able to focus the
transmitted energy on a specific receiver and also combat the
small-scale channel fading, which improves the energy trans-
mission efficiency, some works began to investigate energy
beamforming in WPCNs by equipping multiple antennas on
the energy tower or H-AP. In [36], energy beamforming was
optimally designed for a point-to-point WPCN, in which a
multi-antenna H-AP emits energy to a receiver to drive the
information transmission of the receiver. In [37], joint energy
beamforming design and time assignment was investigated to
maximize the sum rate of multiple users in a WPCN, where
the users harvest energy from a dedicated power station and
then use the harvested energy to transmit information to their
common destination. In [38], a WPCN with group cooperation
was considered, where two communication groups cooperate
with each other via wireless power transfer and time sharing
to fulfill their expected information delivering.
In this paper, we also focus on the H-AP-assisted WPCN,
in which a H-AP broadcasts energy to two distributed users
in the downlink (DL) and the users transmit their indepen-
dent information using their individually harvested energy
to the H-AP in the uplink (UL) through time-division-
multiple-access (TDMA). Different from existing works,
e.g., [26]–[28], [36], [37], where no user cooperation was
involved, the user cooperation between the two users is con-
sidered in our work, where the user relatively near to the H-AP
is employed as a relay node to help forward the information
transmission of the user relatively far away from the H-AP
by consuming a part of its allocated UL time and DL har-
vested energy. Although in [31]–[35] the user cooperation was
considered, only single antenna was equipped at the H-AP,
so that no energy beamforming was involved in [31]–[35].
Comparably, multiple antennas are equipped at the H-AP and
the energy beamforming is jointly designed and optimized
with the time assignment in our work. In addition, different
from all existing works mentioned above, where only system
throughput, sum-rate, WSR or rate fairness were optimized,
in our work, besides the WSR-maximization design, the total
transmission time minimization design of the system is also
investigated to meet the low-power design requirement of
WSNs and green communication design requirement of future
communication systems [39].
Our contributions can be summarized as follows.
Firstly, in order to explore the system information trans-
mission performance limit, we also formulate an optimization
problem to maximize the WSR of the system by jointly
optimizing energy beamforming and time assignment.
Secondly, with given amount of data required to be delivered
at the two users, we formulate an optimization problem to
minimize the total transmission time of the system by jointly
optimizing energy beamforming and time assignment.
Thirdly, as the both problems are neither convex nor con-
cave, we first transform them to be convex by using variable
substitution operations and then applying the semidefinite
relaxation (SDR) method to solve them efficiently. We also
theoretically prove that with our proposed method, the global
optimum of the solutions associated with the two problems
can be guaranteed.
Fourthly, simulation results are provided, which show that
system performances of WSR and the transmission time are
significantly enhanced by using energy beamforming and user
cooperation. It is also observed that when total amount of
information of two users is fixed, with the increase of the
information amount of the user relatively farther away from the
H-AP, the transmission time of the user cooperation scheme
decreases while that of the direct transmission increases.
Besides, the effects of user position on the system performance
are also demonstrated, which provides insights on the WPCN.
Finally, we also extend our scheme to multiple user pair
scenarios, it shows that our proposed solution method is still
valid and employing our proposed joint energy beamforming
and user cooperation may bring more system performance gain
in multiple user pair scenarios.
Note that although the three-node WPCN topology seems
a little bit simple, the joint energy beamforming and time
assignment with user cooperation is not trivial, since the
beamforming vector and the time assignment vector are cou-
pled together, which results in the difficulty to solve the
problems. Nevertheless, we present efficient solution meth-
ods which are capable of guaranteeing the global optimum.
For more H-APs or more user scenarios, the corresponding
transmission strategies, optimization problems and algorithms
shall be reconsidered and redesigned, which is beyond the
scope of this paper. As alternative, the three-node group
decomposition of a multi-user or multi-relay system may be
an easy way to get system gains apparently. Actually, our
considered H-AP-assisted WPCN model can be applied to
various communication networks, including WSNs and IoT.
For example, in WSNs, sensor nodes are deployed to acquire
environmental data such as temperature or humidity. Their
available energy is often very limited due to the embedded
small-capacity battery. Thus, to ensure the network availability,
sensor nodes are required to be powered with steady energy.
As the sink node in WSNs is generally with fixed sufficient

Fig. 1. System model.
energy source, which also collects data from the sensors, and
thus it may be treated as a H-AP. Moreover, sink node is often
with much bigger size than sensors, so it may be equipped
with multiple antennas. Therefore, energy beamforming is able
to be employed to enhance the energy transfer efficiency.
Furthermore, in practical WSNs, sensor nodes are generally
distributed with different distances from the sink node, so user
cooperation among sensors can be utilized to enhance the
system performance.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
describes the system model. Section III formulates an opti-
mization problem to maximize the WSR of two users and
provides the solution method. Section IV formulates an opti-
mization problem to minimize the total transmission time
of two users and present the solution method. Section V
extends our work to multiple user pair scenarios. In Section VI,
simulation results are provided. Finally, Section VII concludes
this paper.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
Consider a wireless network consisting of a hybrid access
point (H-AP), referred to as U0 , and two users denoted by
U1 and U2 , as shown in Figure 1. U0 is equipped with N
antennas and U1 and U2 are with single antenna. U1 and U2
desire to transmit information to U0 who has fixed energy
supply. U1 and U2 are energy-constrained nodes that need
to harvest energy from the RF signals transmitted by U0 in
order to support their information transmission. Quasi-static
fading channel are assumed, so that at each fading state all
channel coefficients are considered to be constant. Moreover,
the channel reciprocity between any two nodes is assumed.
That is, at each fading state, the channel coefficient from node
u to v is the same with that from v to u.
Since U1 and U2 have no power to initiate the information
transmission, the transmission period is divided into two
phases, i.e., the DL energy transfer (ET) phase and the UL
information transmission (IT) phase, as shown in Figure 2.
In the ET phase with time length of τ0 , U0 transfers
energy to both U1 and U2 through RF transmission, as shown
in Figure 1 (a). The received signal at Ui (i = 1, 2) from U0
is given by
√ information to U0 .1 Thus, the received signal at U0 from U2
yi,0 = P 0 hiH ω + z i , ∀i = 1, 2,
where P0 denotes the transmit power at U0 and hi denotes the
complex channel vectors of size N × 1 for the links from U0
Fig. 2. Framework of the transmission protocol.
to Ui . z i is the additive white Gaussian noise at Ui , in which
each element is with zero mean and variance N0 and ω is an
N × 1 vector with
ω2 ≤ 1, (1)
denoting the energy beamforming vector, which is calculated
and employed at U0 . Therefore, the received energy at the Ui
in the ET phase can be given by
E i = τ0 η|hiH ω|2 P0 , ∀i = 1, 2,
where η ∈ (0, 1) represents the energy conversion efficiency.
In the IT phase, U1 and U2 transmit their information to U0
using only their harvested energy in the ET phase. In general,
U1 and U2 have different distances from U0 . Without loss
of generality, we assume that U2 is closer to U0 than U1 .
In this case, U2 acts as a relay node to help the information
transmission from U1 to U0 . Also, U2 has its own information
to be delivered to U0 , which is transferred over the U2 → U0
direct link. To complete the information transmission from
U1 and U2 to U0 , the IT phase is further divided into three
durations with time length τ1 , τ2(1) and τ2(2) , respectively.
Specifically, in the first duration of τ1 , U1 broadcasts infor-
mation to U0 and U2 . The received signal at U0 and U2 from
U1 can be respectively given by

y0(1) = P1 h1 s1 + z0 ,
and

y2(1) = P1 gs1 + z 2 ,
where s1 is the information symbol of U1 with unit power
and g is the complex channel coefficient between U1 and U2 .
z0 represents the additive white Gaussian noise vector at U0 ,
in which each element is with zero mean and variance N0 , and
P1 represents the transmit power of U1 . As the total consumed
energy at U1 must be smaller than its harvested energy E 1 ,
P1 must satisfy that τ1 P1 ≤ E 1 , i.e.,
τ1 P1 ≤ η|h1H ω|2 P0 τ0 . (2)
Decode-and-forward (DF) relaying operation is employed
at U2 , so that in the second duration of τ2(1), U2 decodes the
information received from U1 and then forwards the decoded
1 Similar to many existing works see e.g. [32]–[34], we ignore the energy
consumption associated with decoding and receiving at U2 , since it is
negligible compared with transmission power.
associated with the data of U1 is into four parts, i.e., T = τ0 + τ1 + τ2(1) + τ2(2) . Let τ =
 (1) (2)
[τ0 , τ1 , τ2 , τ2 ], which can be regarded as the time fraction
(1) (1) (1)
y0,2 = P2 h2 s2 + z0 , assignment vector. Without loss of generality, T is normalized
to 1 in this section. As a result, it satisfies that
where P2(1) denotes the power consumed at U2 to assist the

(1)
information transmission of U1 and s2 denotes the transmit τ0 + τ1 + τ2(1) + τ2(2) ≤ 1,
(1) (2) (7)
signal in this duration. According to [42], the achievable end- τ0 , τ1 , τ2 , τ2 ≥ 0.
to-end information rate (Nats/s/Hz) from U1 to U0 over the
DF relaying channel can be given by Our goal is to maximize the system WSR by jointly
  optimizing energy beamforming design, time assignment and
(12) (10)
R1 = min R1 , R1 , (3) power allocation. Thus, the problem can be mathematically
expressed as
(12)
where R1 is the information rate over the U1 → U2 link,
which is P1 : max α1 R1 + α2 R2
{ω,τ ,P}
 
(12) |g|2 P1 s.t. (1), (2), (6), (7), (8)
R1 = τ1 C
N0 where α1 and α2 respectively denote the given nonnegative
(10) rate weights for U1 and U2 to reflect the users’ fairness, and
and R1 is the sum information rate over the U1 → U2 and
U2 → U 1 links, which is P = [P1 , P2(1) , P2(2) ] represents the power allocation vector.
   From (2), (3), (4) , (5) and (6), it can be seen that ω, τ and
(10) h1 2 P1 (1) h2 2 P2(1) P are multiplicatively coupled with each other, which makes
R 1 = τ1 C + τ2 C , (4)
N0 N0 Problem P1 neither convex nor concave. Thus, Problem P1
cannot be easily solved by using known methods. Therefore,
where C (x)  ln(1 + x). we propose an efficient method to solve it as follows.
In the third duration of τ2(2) , U2 transmits its own informa- Following (3), we have that
tion to U0 . The received signal at U0 from U2 associated with  2 
the data of U2 can be given by |g| P1
R 1 ≤ τ1 C (9)
 N0
(2) (2) (2)
y0,2 = P2 h2 s2 + z0 , and
   (1)

where P2(2)denotes power consumed at U2 to transmit its h1 2 P1 (1) h2 2 P2
(2) R 1 ≤ τ1 C + τ2 C . (10)
own information and s2 denotes its own information symbol. N0 N0
Accordingly, the achievable information rate from U2 to U0
is given by By treating R1 as an optimization variable, Problem P1 can
 be equivalently transformed into
(2) h2 2 P2(2)
R 2 = τ2 C , (5) P1-A : max α1 R1 + α2 R2
N0 {R1 ,ω,τ ,P}
s.t. (1), (2), (6), (7), (9), (10) (11)
Moreover, since the total consumed energy at U2 must be
smaller than its harvested energy E 2 , we have that Problem P1-A is also non-convex, as ω, τ and P are
(1) (1) (2) (2) still multiplicatively couples with each other. To solve it,
τ2 P2 + τ2 P2 ≤ η|h2H ω|2 P0 τ0 . (6) (1) (2)
we introduce an auxiliary vector t = [t1 , t2 , t2 ], where
(1) (1) (1) (2) (2) (2)
For the transmission protocol with user cooperation t1 = τ1 P1 , t2 = τ2 P2 and t2 = τ2 P2 . Then, we have
described above, we shall explore its maximum WSR and that
minimum total transmission time in Section III and Section IV, ⎧ t1
⎪
⎪ P1 = ,
respectively. ⎪
⎪ τ
⎪
⎪ 1
⎪
⎨ (1) t (1)
III. W EIGHTED S UM -R ATE M AXIMIZATION D ESIGN P2 = 2(1) , (12)
⎪
⎪ τ2
Based on the system model described in section II, in this ⎪
⎪ (2)
⎪
⎪ (2) t2
section, we shall discuss how to jointly optimize the energy ⎪
⎩ P2 = (2) .
beamforming and time assignment to maximize the WSR of τ2
the system. We first formulate a WSR maximization problem. (1) (2) t1 t2
(1)

Then, we transform the problem into some equivalent ones by By substituting P1 , P2 and P2 with τ1 , (1) and
τ2
using proper variable substitutions. After that, we use the SDR (2)
t2
method to solve it efficiently. Finally, we theoretically prove (2) , respectively, in terms of (12), we can respectively
τ2
that by using our proposed method, the global optimum of the transform (5) into
obtained solution can be guaranteed.  (2)

(2) h2 2 t2
In terms of the transmission process described in Section II, R2 = τ2 C (2)
, (13)
one can see that the total transmission period T is divided N0 τ2
(9) into Fortunately, we also found that the rank-one optimal solu-
  tion V ∗ of Problem P1-C always exists, which means that by
|g|2 t
R 1 ≤ τ1 C N0 τ1
1
, (14) using our solution method mentioned above, the global optimal
solution of P1 can always be obtained. To prove this, we first
and (10) into
  introduce the following lemma [41].
  (1)
Lemma 1: ([42, Th. 3.2]) The following optimization
h1 2 t1 (1) h2 2 t2
R 1 ≤ τ1 C N0 τ1 + τ2 C (1) . (15)
N0 τ2 problem
L
Moreover, by defining V  τ0 ωω H , constraint (1) can be min Tr(C l X l )
X 1 ,...,X L l=1
equivalently rewritten to be
⎧ s.t. X l 0, l = 1, . . . , L,
⎪ L
⎨Tr(V) ≤ τ0 , Tr( Aml X l ) ≥ bm , m = 1, . . . , M.
l=1
V 0, (16)
⎪
⎩ always has an optimal solution (X 1∗ , . . . , X ∗L ) such that
rank(V) = 1,
L
constraints (2) and (6) can be respectively transformed into rank2 (X l∗ ) ≤ M,
l=1

t1 ≤ η P0 Tr(h1 h1H V), (17) where Aml , X l , C l are K × K Hermitian matrices and bm is
a real number.
and The detail information associated with how to generate a
(1) (2) rank-constrained solution can be referenced to [41]. Based on
t2 + t2 ≤ η P0 Tr(h2 h2H V). (18)
Lemma 1, we present the Theorem 2 as follows.
By doing so, Problem P1-A is equivalently transformed into Theorem 2: The rank-one optimal solution V ∗ of Prob-
lem P1-C always exists.
P1-B : max α1 R1 + α2 R2 Proof: Consider the following optimization problem
{R1 ,V,t,τ }
s.t. (7), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18). (19) P2 : min Tr(V)
V
Due to the rank-one constraint in (16), Problem P1-B must s.t. t1∗ ≤ η P0 Tr(h1 h1H V),
be non-convex, so we adopt the semidefinite relaxation (SDR) (1)∗ (2)∗
t2 + t2 ≤ η P0 Tr(h2 h2H V), V 0.
technique to deal with it. By dropping the rank-one constraint,
we obtain the relaxed problem of Problem P1-B as Suppose the optimal solution of Problem P2 is V . We first
prove that V is feasible for Problem P1-C as follows.
P1-C : max α1 R1 + α2 R2 (20) Since the number of constraints of Problem P1-C is more
{R1 ,V,t,τ }
s.t. Tr(V) ≤ τ0 , V 0, than Problem P2, i.e., the constraints of Problem P1-C is
tighter than those of Problem P2, a feasible solution of Prob-
(7), (14), (15), (17), (18). (21) lem P1-C must be feasible for Problem P2. Thus, Tr(V ) ≤
Fortunately, we find that Problem P1-C is a convex problem, Tr(V∗ ) ≤ τ0∗ , which indicates that V is feasible for
which is emphasized and proved in the following theorem. Problem P1-C. Moreover, since the objective function of
Theorem 1: Problem P1-C is a convex problem. Problem P1-C is only related to t, τ and R1 , it can be
Proof: The constraints (7), (17), (18) and (21) are linear. inferred that (V , t∗ , τ ∗ , R1∗ ) is also the optimal solution of
The right part of the constraint (14)is the perspective function Problem P1-C. According to Lemma 1, there exists anoptimal
 2
of concave functions ln 1 + |g|N0t1 and thus (14) is convex.
2
solution V for the Problem P2 such that rank(V ) ≤ 2.
 
Therefore, the optimal V satisfies V = 0 and thus
The constraint (15) has similar form as (14), and thus it can
rank(V ) = 1. Hence, Theorem 2 is proved. 
also be proved to be convex. From (13), the objective function
Corollary 1: The global optimal solution to Problem P1 is
is the 
non-negative  weighted sum of R1 and concave function
(2)
h2 2 t2
guaranteed by using our proposed solution method.
τ22 ln 1 + N0 τ22 , so the objective function is concave. Proof: Problem P1, Problem P1-A and Problem P1-B
Thus, Theorem 1 is proved.  are equivalent to each other. It is known that once the optimal
Following Theorem, it is known that the global optimal solution of Problem P1-C satisfies the rank-one constraint,
solution (V∗ , t∗ , τ ∗ , R1∗ ) of Problem P1-C can be obtained by it is equivalent to Problem P1-B. Theorem 2 proves that
using CVX tools [40]. With the obtained t∗ , τ ∗ , the optimal P∗ Problem P1-C always has a rank-one optimal solution and
can be derived according to (12). Theorem 1 indicates that the global optimal solution of
Note that our goal is to find the optimal beamforming Problem P1-C can be found. Therefore, the optimal solution
vector ω∗ rather than V∗ . Only when the optimal V∗ of for Problem P1 can always be found by using our proposed
Problem P1-C follows rank-one constraint, the ω∗ calculated solution method. 
from V∗ is the optimal solution of Problem P1-B. Particularly,
in this case, the optimal beamforming vector ω∗ for the IV. T RANSMISSION T IME M INIMIZATION D ESIGN
primary problem P1 can be extracted by eigenvalue decom- In Section III, we explore the potential information
position of V∗ /τ ∗ . transmission capacity of the system by considering the
WSR-maximization problem. In practical applications, it is Similar to Problem P1-A, by dropping the rank-one con-
often of great to deliver all data for the users with as little time straint in (16), Problem P3-A is transformed into
as possible, especially for sensing applications. Actually, small
P3-B : min τ0 + τ1 + τ2(1) + τ2(2)
transmission time is also very important for user experience {V,t,τ }
and real-time applications. Therefore, in this section, we shall s.t. Tr(V) ≤ τ0 , V 0
discuss the transmission time minimization problem by jointly (17), (18), (24), (25), (26). (27)
optimizing the energy beamforming and time assignment.
Denote the amount of information required to be delivered Theorem 3: Problem P3-B is a convex problem.
from Ui to U0 to be Bi nats, where i = 1, 2. Without loss Proof: Constraints (17), (18), (24), (27) and the objec-
of generality, the system bandwidth is normalized to be 1Hz. tive function are linear. Moreover, the left side of the first
To guarantee the successful delivery of all information of U1 term of (25) is a perspective function of the concave func-
tion C |g|N2t1 , so the first term of constraint (25) must be
2
to U0 over the U1 − U2 − U0 three node DF cooperative relay
link, we need to ensure that R1 ≥ B1 . Combining it with (3), convex. Similarly, the second term of constraint (25) and
we have that
constraint (26) can also be proved to be convex. Therefore,
⎧  2 
⎪ |g| P1 Theorem 3 is proved. 
⎪
⎨ τ1 C ≥ B1 , As a result, the global optimal solution (V∗ , t∗ , τ ∗ ) of P3-B
 N0 2    (22)
⎪
⎪ h1  P1 (1)
(1)
h2 2 P2 can be obtained by interior point solver, e.g., CVX [40].
⎩ τ1 C + τ2 C N0 ≥ B 1 . In terms of the definition of t, τ , with the obtained t∗ , τ ∗ ,
N0
the optimal P∗ can be derived in terms of (12). Similar
Meanwhile, to guarantee the successful delivery of all infor- to Problem P1, to guarantee the global optimal solution of
mation from U2 to the U0 over the U2 → U0 direct link, it is Problem P3, the remaining question is to determine that
required that R2 ≥ B2 , i.e., whether the optimal V∗ of Problem P3-B is rank-one. If yes,
 the global optimal solution of Problem P3 can be guaranteed.
(2) h2 2 P2(2) Fortunately, we found that the rank-one optimal solution V∗ of
τ2 C ≥ B2 . (23)
N0 Problem P3-B also always exists and thus the global optimum
is guaranteed by using our proposed solution method. For
Then the transmission time minimization problem by jointly
emphasizing, we prove it as follows.
optimizing the energy beamforming and time assignment can
Theorem 4: The rank-one optimal solution V∗ of Prob-
be mathematically expressed by
lem P3-B always exists.
P3 : min τ0 + τ1 + τ2(1) + τ2(2) Proof: Compared with Problem P2, since the number
{ω,τ ,P} of constraints of P3-B is more than P2, a feasible solu-
s.t. (1), (2), (6), (22), (23) tion of P3-B is also feasible for P2. Therefore, Tr(V ) ≤
τ0 , τ1 , τ2(1) , τ2(2) ≥ 0. (24) Tr(V∗ ) ≤ τ0∗ , which indicates that V is feasible for
P3-B. As the objective function of P3-B is only related to
Although the objective function of Problem P3 is linear, τ , the feasible solution (V , t ∗ , τ ∗ ) also arrives at the optimal
the constraints (22) and (23) are non-convex sets due to the value of P3-B. Moreover, according to Lemma 1, the optimal
multiplicative coupled variables. Thus, Problem P3 also cannot  2
solution V of P2 exists and it satisfies that rank(V ) ≤ 2.
be directly solved. Following similar approach in previous So, one can infer that V satisfies V = 0, i.e., rank(V ) = 1.
section, the problem can be solved as follows. As a result, Theorem 4 is proved. 
(1) (2)
Firstly, by using the definition t = [t1 , t2 , t2 ], where Corollary 2: The global optimal solution to Problem P3 is
t1 = τ1 P1 , t2(1) = τ2(1) P2(1) and t2(2) = τ2(2) P2(2) , constraint (22) guaranteed by using our proposed solution method.
can be re-written to be Proof: The proof is similar to that of Corollary 1, which
⎧  2  is omitted here. 
⎪
⎪ |g| t1
⎨ τ1 C ≥ B1 ,
 N0 τ12    (25) V. E XTENSION TO M ULTIPLE U SER PAIR S CENARIOS
⎪
⎪ h1  t1 (1)
h2 2 t2
⎩ τ1 C + τ2(1) C (1) ≥ B 1 , In this section, we apply our proposed solution method to a
N0 τ1 N0 τ2
more complex network scenario, where multiple users desire
and constraint (23) can be re-written to be to harvest energy from a common H-AP and then use the
 harvested energy to transmit information to the H-AP. It is
(2) h2 2 t2(2)
τ2 C ≥ B2 . (26) assumed that every two users are pre-grouped into a user pair
N0 τ2(2) and the number of user pairs is denoted as K . How to pair
the users is beyond the scope of the paper.
Further, also by introducing V = τ0 ωω H , Problem P3 can In the considered K user pair system, Ui,1 and Ui,2 are
be equivalently transformed into the two users of the i -th user pair, i = 1, 2, . . . , K . Suppose
P3-A : min τ0 + τ1 + τ2(1) + τ2(2) Ui,1 is closer to H-AP, which is able to help the farther user
{V,t,τ } Ui,2 to transmit information. The transmission procedure can
s.t. (16), (17), (18), (24), (25), (26). also be divided into the DL ET phase and the UL IT phase.
In the ET phase with time length of τ0 , H-AP broadcasts The problem is non-convex, in order to solve it, by using our
energy to all users with the power P0 . Then, in the IT phase, solution method proposed in Section IV, we introduce some
(1) (1) (1)
all users transmit information to the H-AP, respectively. The auxiliary variables, i.e., ti,1 = τi,1 Pi,1 , ti,2 = τi,2 Pi,2 , and
IT phase is further divided into K sub-phases, and in the (2) (2) (2)
ti,2 = τi,2 Pi,2 . By defining V = τ0 ωω H , (33) is transformed
i -th sub-phase, the i -th user pair transmits its information to into
the H-AP. Note that, the i -th sub-phase is also divided into  (2)
three durations in order to fulfill the cooperative transmission. (2) hi,2 2 ti,2
Ri,2 = τi,2 C (2)
, i = 1, 2, . . . , K (35)
That is, Ui,1 firstly broadcasts its own information with the N0 τi,2
power Pi,1 in the duration of τi,1 , and then Ui,2 decodes the
(31) is transformed into
information of Ui,1 and forwards the decoded information to  2 
(1) (1) |g | t
H-AP with the power Pi,2 in the duration of τi,2 , and at last Ri,1 ≤ τi,1 C Ni0 τi,1i,1 , i = 1, 2, . . . , K , (36)
(2)
Ui,2 transmits own information to H-AP with the power Pi,2
(2) and (32) is transformed into
in the left duration τi,2 . 
  (1)
As the total consumed energy at Ui,1 and Ui,2 (i = hi,1 2 ti,1 (1) hi,2 2 ti,2
1, 2, . . . , K ) must be less than their harvested energy, it sat- Ri,1 ≤ τi,1 C + τi,2 C ,
N0 τi,1 N0 τ (1) i,2
isfies the following constraints, i.e.,
i = 1, 2, . . . , K . (37)
τi,1 Pi,1 ≤ η|hi,1
H
ω|2 P0 τ0 , i = 1, 2, . . . , K , (28)
Besides, the constraints (28) and (29) can be respectively
and transformed into
(1) (1) (2) (2)
τi,2 Pi,2 + τi,2 Pi,2 ≤ η|hi,2
H
ω|2 P0 τ0 , i = 1, 2, . . . , K . ti,1 ≤ η P0 Tr(hi,1 hi,1
H V), i = 1, 2, . . . , K , (38)
(29) and
Additionally, the transmission time should satisfy that (1) (2)
ti,2 + ti,2 ≤ η P0 Tr(hi,2 hi,2
H V), i = 1, 2, . . . , K . (39)

K (1) (2)
τ0 + i=1 (τi,1 + τi,2 + τi,2 ) ≤ 1,
(1) (2) (30)
τ0 , τi,1 , τi,2 , τi,2 ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , K . As a result, Problem P4 can be equivalently expressed by
K
P4-A : max (αi,1 Ri,1 + αi,2 Ri,2 )
TheK
system WSR of the K user pairs can be expressed by {R,V,t,τ } i=1
i=1 i,1 Ri,1 + αi,2 Ri,2 ), where Ri,1 and Ri,2 , respectively,
(α
s.t. (16), (30), (36), (37), (38), (39), (40)
represent the achievable rate of the user Ui,1 and Ui,2 in the
(1) (1)
i -th user pair, which satisfy that where t denotes the set {ti,1 , ti,2 , ti,2 |i
= 1, 2, . . . , K }.
  Due to the rank-one constraint in (16), Problem P4-A is
|gi |2 Pi,1
Ri,1 ≤ τi,1 C , (31) still non-convex, so we adopt SDR technique to deal with it.
N0 By dropping the rank-one constraint, we obtain the relaxed
   (1)
hi,1 2 Pi,1 (1) hi,2 2 Pi,2 problem of Problem P4-A as
Ri,1 ≤ τi,1 C + τi,2 C , (32)
N0 N0 
K
P4-B : max (αi,1 Ri,1 + αi,2 Ri,2 ) (41)
and {V,t,τ }
 (2) i=1
(2) hi,2 2 Pi,2 s.t. Tr(V) ≤ τ0 , V 0,
Ri,2 = τi,2 C . (33)
N0 (30), (36), (37), (38), (39). (42)
αi,1 and αi,2 (i = 1, 2, . . . , K ) denote the nonnegative rate
weights of Ui,1 and Ui,2 in the i -th user pair, respectively. Similar to Section IV, it can be easily proved that Prob-
hi, j (i = 1, 2, . . . , K , j = 1, 2) denotes the complex channel lem P4-B is a convex problem, and thus it can be solved
vectors of size N × 1 for the links from U0 to Ui, j , and by interior point solver, e.g., CVX [40]. Finally, it is worth
gi (i = 1, 2, . . . , K ) is the complex channel coefficient noting that the obtained optimal solution V∗ is not nec-
between Ui,1 and Ui,2 . essarily rank-one. If so, a suboptimal solution ω can be
The optimization problem to maximize the system WSR by obtained from V∗ by adopting the Gaussian randomization
jointly optimizing energy beamforming, the time assignment approach [43].
and the power allocation can be mathematically given by
K VI. S IMULATION R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
P4 : max (αi,1 Ri,1 + αi,2 Ri,2 )
{R,ω,τ ,P} i=1 In this section, some simulation results are provided to
s.t. (1), (31), (32), (28), (29), (30), (34) discuss the performance of the proposed system. The simulated
network topology is shown in Figure 3, where all nodes
where R is the set {Ri,1 |i = 1, 2, . . . , K }, τ is the are placed on a 2-D plane and the position of each node
(1) (1)
set {τ0 , τi,1 , τi,2 , τi,2 |i = 1, 2, . . . , K } and P is the set is determined by its coordinate (x, y). Specifically, H-AP is
(1) (1)
{Pi,1 , Pi,2 , Pi,2 |i = 1, 2, . . . , K }. positioned at the point with coordinate (0,0), U1 is positioned
Fig. 3. Illustration of the simulation network topology on a 2-D plane.
Fig. 4. WSR comparison of our proposed scheme and the benchmark scheme
versus the available transmit power at H-AP for N = 5 and N = 10.
at (10,0) and U2 can be located at any point in the green
area. All channels were generated by Rayleigh distribution
with CN (0, 10−3 duv
−α ), where d
Fig. 5. WSR comparison of our proposed user cooperation scheme and the
direct transmission scheme versus the available transmit power at H-AP for
N = 5 and N = 10.
energy beamforming, the system performance of the WPCN
can be greatly enhanced.
Secondly, we compare our proposed transmission method
(i.e., the user cooperation transmission scheme) with the direct
transmission method. In the direct transmission scheme, each
user transmit their information to the H-AP directly over the
Ui → U0 link, where i = 1, 2 and no user cooperation
between the two users was involved. For the direct transmis-
sion scheme, its ET phase is same with that of our proposed
transmission scheme, but its IT phase is divided into two
durations with time intervals τ1 and τ2 rather than three ones.
Specifically, in the first and the second durations, U1 and U2
transmit their information to U0 , respectively. To get the
optimal WSR of the direct transmission, we considered the
optimization problem
uv is the distance between two P5 : max{ω,τ ,P} α1 R1 + α2 R2 (43)
nodes u, v and the distance between H-AP and U1 is 10m,
and α is the exponential pathloss factor which was set to be 3. s.t. (1), (2),
The noise power N0 was set to be −100dBm and η was set τ0 + τ1 + τ2 ≤ 1, (44)
to be 0.5. τ0 , τ1 , τ2 ≥ 0, (45)
τ2 P2 ≤ η|h2H ω|2 P0 τ0 , (46)
A. Weighted Sum-Rate Comparisons where P2 denotes the power of U2 , P = [P1 , P2 ] represents
In the simulations, the weights for U1 and U2 are set to be the power allocation. τ2 = τ2 /τ and let τ = [τ0 , τ1 , τ2 ] repre-
α1 = 0.8 and α2 = 0.2, respectively. The distance between sent the time fraction assignment and satisfy
 (44) and (45).
H-AP and U2 is set to be 9m and the distance between
U1 and U2 is 1m, i.e., U2 is located at the point (9,0).
Firstly, we compare our proposed scheme with the simple
benchmark method in terms of WSR. In the benchmark
method, no energy beamforming is carried out at U0 , i.e. the
power is allocated uniformly among all antennas. Figure 4
plots the WSR versus the power P of the H-AP for dif-
ferent numbers of antennas, i.e., N = 5 and N = 10.
From Figure 4, it is shown that with the increase of P,
the WSRs of the two schemes increase and the WSR of
our proposed scheme surpasses the benchmark scheme. For
example, when P = 30dBm, by using energy beamform-
ing, the system WSR is increased about 60% and 70% for
N = 10 and N = 5, respectively, which indicates that with
R1 = τ1 C h1N0 P1 and R2 = τ2 C h2N0 P2 are the
2 2
achievable rate of two users, respectively. (46) represents
the energy constraint of U2 . A similar solution method of
problem P1 can be adopted and then the maximum WSR of
the direct transmission is obtained by solving Problem P5.
Figure 5 compares the WSRs of two transmission modes
(i.e., with or without user cooperation) with respect to the
power P of the H-AP for different number of antennas. One
can observe that the WSR of the user cooperation transmission
is superior to the direct transmission.
Thirdly, we compare the user cooperation transmission
scheme with the direct transmission scheme for different user
weights in Figure 6. Without loss of generality, it is assumed
that α1 + α2 = 1. The transmit power of the H-AP is set

Fig. 6. WSR comparison of our proposed user cooperation scheme and the
direct transmission scheme versus the weight of U1 for N = 5 and N = 10.
Fig. 7. WSR of the direct transmission versus the position of U2 .
to be 10dBm. From Figure 6, it can be observed that when
the weight of U1 is larger than that of U2 , user cooperation
transmission is superior to direct transmission. So, in this case,
user cooperation transmission scheme is a better choice. When
the weight of U1 is less than that of U2 , the performances
of direct transmission and user cooperation transmission are
very similar to each other. In this case direct transmission
scheme may be a better choice in order to achieve a relatively
simple system configuration. Moreover, in Figure 6, it shows
that when α1 ≥ 0.5, user cooperation may bring performance
gains. The reason is that when the farther user U1 has a larger
weight than U2 , it is with more importance than U2 . Thus,
its information rate must be enhanced at first. In this case,
in order to enhance the farther users information rate, user
cooperation is a better choice.
Fourthly, the effect of the position of U2 on the system WSR
for the direct transmission and user cooperation transmission
is discussed via simulations. The simulated network topology
is shown in Figure 3. The transmit power of the H-AP is set
to be 10dBm and the number of antennas is set to be 10.
Figure 7 and Figure 8 plot the effect of the position of U2
for the direct transmission and user cooperation transmission,
respectively. It can be seen that their WSR performances
Fig. 8. WSR of our proposed user cooperation transmission versus the
position of U2 .
Fig. 9. WSR Comparison of our proposed user cooperation transmission
and the direct transmission versus the position of U2 , where blue and green
surfaces represent the WSR of direct transmission and user cooperation
transmission, respectively.
show very different behaviors. Particularly, for the direct
transmission, when U2 is placed close to the H-AP, the WSR
achieves maximum and with the increase of the distance
between U2 and the H-AP, the WSR gradually decreases.
While, for the user cooperation transmission, the situation is
more complicated. Although when U2 is placed close to the
H-AP, the maximum WSR is also achieved, a local maximal
WSR exists when U2 is located on the straight line between
the H-AP and U1 and closer to U1 .
To get more insights, Figure 9 plots the results of Figure 7
and Figure 8 in the same coordinate system. It can be seen
that when U2 is located close to the local optimal point,
the WSR of the user cooperation transmission surpasses the
direct transmission while when U2 is located at the rest
locations, the WSR of the user cooperation transmission is
less than the direct transmission. This observation means that
1) by involving cooperative relaying between the two users
cannot always bring performance gain to the system, which is
consistent with that of the cooperative relaying in traditional
non-wireless powered networks; 2) when U2 is positioned
relatively close to U1 , the user cooperation transmission is
a better choice to achieve higher WSR, because when U2
Fig. 10. Transmission mode selection regions.
Fig. 11. WSR of our proposed user cooperation transmission versus the
number of antennas.
is positioned relatively close to U1 , the channel between
U1 and U2 is with relatively better channel condition. In this
case, U2 has much higher possibility to successfully decode the
information of U1 and then help U1 to forward the information,
which utilizes the cooperative diversity between the two users
and may greatly enhance the system achievable information
rate performance.
Following Figure 9, we plot the transmission mode selection
regions in terms of the location of U2 in Figure 10, where the
red curve is a circular arc with the distance of 10m to the
H-AP and U2 should be located in the area below the red arc
to act as a helping relay for U1 as in this area U2 is closer to
H-AP than U1 . According to our simulation results, the area
below the red arc is divided into two regions, i.e., region I and
region II. The part above the red arc is labeled as region III.
In the region I, user cooperation transmission mode is a better
choice. In region II, the direct transmission mode is a better
choice. In the region III, U2 has a larger distance to H-AP
than U1 , so U1 should act as the helping node for U2 when
user cooperation gain is desired to be achieved. Even though,
in region III, the choice of the direct transmission or the user
cooperation transmission also shall be determined by their
relative locations.
Finally, Figure 11 plots the WSR versus the number of
the antennas for our proposed user cooperation transmission.
Fig. 12. Transmission time comparison of our proposed user cooperation
scheme and the benchmark scheme versus the available transmit power at
H-AP for N = 5 and N = 10.
It can be observed that with the increase of the number of
the antennas, the performance can be significantly improved,
but it cannot be improved infinitely as the growing rate of the
curves decreases with the increase of N.
B. Transmission Time Comparisons
In the simulations associated with this subsection, the total
amount of information required to be transmitted by U1 and U2
over unit bandwidth are set to be B1 = B2 = 1nats. U2 is
located at the point (9,0).
Firstly, we compare the proposed scheme with the afore-
mentioned benchmark scheme to demonstrate its superiority in
terms of the total transmission time. Figure 12 compares the
transmission time of the two schemes versus transmit power P
of H-AP. From Figure 12, it is seen that with the increase
of P, the transmission time of both our proposed scheme and
the benchmark scheme decrease, and the transmission time
of our proposed scheme is less than that of the benchmark
scheme. For example, when P = 0dBm, the transmission
time is decreased about 80% and 90% by adopting energy
beamforming for N = 5 and N = 10, respectively.
Secondly, we compare the proposed scheme with the afore-
mentioned direct transmission scheme in terms of the total
transmission time. As described previously, in the direct trans-
mission scheme, the IT phase is divided into two durations
with time intervals τ1 and τ2 . In the first and the second dura-
tions U1 and U2 transmits its information to U0 , respectively.
To find the minimum total transmission time, we considered
the following the following optimization problem
P6 : min{ω,τ ,P} τ0 + τ1 + τ2
s.t. (1), (2),
τ2 P2 ≤ η|h2H ω|2 P0 τ0 , (47)
 
hi 2 Pi
τi C ≥ Bi , ∀i = 1, 2 (48)
N0
τ0 , τ1 , τ2 ≥ 0, (49)
where τ = [τ0 , τ1 , τ2 ] represents the time assignment and sat-
isfies the constraint (24). (47) represents the energy constraint

Fig. 13. Transmission time comparison of our proposed user cooperation
scheme and the direct transmission scheme versus the available transmit power
at H-AP for N = 5 and N = 10.
Fig. 14. Transmission time comparison of our proposed user cooperation
scheme and the direct transmission scheme versus the ratio of the amount of
information of U1 to U2 .
of U2 , and (48) describes the constraints for guaranteeing the
successfully information delivering of U1 and U2 .
Figure 13 compares the minimal transmission time of
our proposed scheme and the direct transmission versus the
transmit power P of H-AP. It is observed that with the
increase of P, the transmission time of our proposed user
cooperation transmission scheme and the direct transmission
scheme decreases, and the user cooperation transmission out-
performs the direct transmission, which indicates that with
user cooperation, the system performance of the WPCN can
be greatly enhanced. Besides, it is also observed that more
transmit antennas may yield lower transmission time for the
system.
Thirdly, Figure 14 shows the system performance with
respect to the ratio of the amount of information of U1 to that
of U2 , where the total information
 amount of the two users are
fixed to be 2nats, i.e., 2i=1 Bi = 2nats. The transmit power
of the H-AP was set to be 10dBm. It is seen that our proposed
user cooperation transmission scheme and the direct trans-
mission scheme show very different performance behaviors.
That is, with the increase of the amount of information of U1 ,
Fig. 15. Transmission time of the direct transmission versus the
position of U2 .
Fig. 16. Transmission time of our proposed user cooperation transmission
versus the position of U2 .
the transmission time of our scheme decreases while that of
the direct transmission scheme increase, which indicates that
when U1 has more information than U2 , the user cooperation
should be employed to achieve better system performance.
Fourthly, the effect of the position of U2 on the transmis-
sion time for the direct transmission and user cooperation
transmission is demonstrated. The network topology is shown
in Figure 3, where U2 is located at any point in the green
area. The transmit power of the H-AP is set to be 10dBm
and the number of antennas is set to be 10. The total amount
of information required to be transmitted by U1 and U2 are
set to be B1 = B2 = 1nats. Figure 15 and Figure 16 plot
the effect of the position of U2 for the direct transmission
and user cooperation transmission, respectively. It can be seen
that their transmission time performances show very different
features. For the direct transmission, when U2 is placed close
to the H-AP, the transmission time achieves minimum. Very
differently, for the user cooperation transmission, when U2 is
placed on the straight line from the H-AP to U1 and closer
to U1 , the transmission time achieves minimum.
Figure 17 compares the transmission time for the direct
transmission and user cooperation transmission with respect
to the position of U2 . It is shown that when U2 is
placed around U1 , the performance of the user cooperation
transmission is superior to that of the direct transmission,

Fig. 17. Transmission time comparison of our proposed user cooperation
transmission versus the position of U2 , where blue and green surfaces
represent the transmission time of direct transmission and user cooperation
transmission, respectively.
Fig. 18. WSR comparison of our proposed user cooperation scheme and the
direct transmission scheme versus the number of user pairs.
which means that when U2 is positioned relatively close
to U1 , the user cooperation transmission is a better choice
to achieve lower total transmission time, because when U2
is positioned relatively close to U1 , as the system achievable
information rate is improved, a lower transmission time also
can be achieved.
Further, combining the results in Figure 9 and 17, one
can observe that for the direct transmission, when U2 is
placed close to the H-AP, both WSR and the total trans-
mission time achieve their optimum. However, for the user
cooperation transmission, the two performance indexes cannot
simultaneously achieve the optimum. Specifically, to achieve
the maximum WSR, U2 should be placed close to the H-AP
while to achieve the minimum transmission time, U2 be placed
in the straight line from the H-AP to U1 and closer to U1 .
C. The Performances of Multiple User Pair Networks
In this subsection, we present the simulation results for
multiple user pair systems, where the system WSR versus
the number of user pairs K is plotted in Figure 18. In the
simulations, the distance between H-AP and the Ui,1 is
randomly selected within [9.5, 10.5]m, the distance between
H-AP and the Ui,2 is randomly selected within [8.5, 9.5]m, and
all the distances between two users in each user pair is 1m. The
weight of the farther user and that of the closer user is set to be
identical respectively. That is, the weight of the farther user is
set to be 0.8 and the weight of the closer user is set to be 0.2.
The number of antennas are 5. It shows that the system WSR
increases with the increment of K . This is because that more
user pairs, more flexibility to optimally assignment the system
resources, which may increase the system sum rate. But the
system WSR cannot be increased infinitely when K grows
due to the limit number of antennas and the total available
power of the system. It is also seen that in our simulations,
the performances of user cooperation transmission is always
superior to that of the direct transmission, which is consistent
with our theoretical discussion in this paper.
VII. C ONCLUSION
This paper studied the joint energy beamforming design,
time assignment and power allocation for WPCN. We for-
mulated two optimization problems to maximize the system
WSR and minimize the total transmission time, respectively.
The problems were solved by using variable substitution
operations and SDR method. We theoretically proved that the
global optimum can be guaranteed. Simulation results show
that system performances of WSR and transmission time can
be significantly enhanced by using energy beamforming and
user cooperation. It is also shown that when total amount of
information of the two users is fixed, with the increase of
the information amount of the user relatively farther away
from the H-AP, the transmission time of the user coopera-
tion scheme decreases while that of the direct transmission
increases. Besides, the effects of user position on the system
performance are also demonstrated, which provides insights on
the WPCN. That is, to achieve the maximum WSR, U2 should
be placed close to the H-AP while to achieve the minimum
transmission time, U2 be placed in the straight line from
the H-AP to U1 and closer to U1 . We also extended our
scheme to multiple user pair scenarios and showed its system
performance gain by simulations.
R EFERENCES
[1] X. Lu, P. Wang, D. Niyato, D. I. Kim, and Z. Han, “Wireless networks
with RF energy harvesting: A contemporary survey,” IEEE Commun.
Surveys Tuts., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 757–789, 2nd Quart., 2015.
[2] H. J. Visser and R. J. M. Vullers, “RF energy harvesting and transport
for wireless sensor network applications: Principles and requirements,”
Proc. IEEE, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 1410–1423, Jun. 2013.
[3] S. Bi, C. K. Ho, and R. Zhang, “Wireless powered communication:
Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 4,
pp. 117–125, Apr. 2015.
[4] S. Bi, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang, “Wireless powered communication
networks: An overview,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 2,
pp. 10–18, Apr. 2016.
[5] M.-L. Ku, W. Li, Y. Chen, and K. J. R. Liu, “Advances in
energy harvesting communications: Past, present, and future chal-
lenges,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1384–1412,
2nd Quart., 2016.
[6] S. Ulukus et al., “Energy harvesting wireless communications: A review
of recent advances,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 3,
pp. 360–381, Mar. 2015.
 [7] T. Li, P. Fan, Z. Chen, and K. B. Letaief, “Optimum transmission policies
for energy harvesting sensor networks powered by a mobile control
center,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 6132–6145,
Sep. 2016.
[8] T. Le, K. Mayaram, and T. Fiez, “Efficient far-field radio frequency
energy harvesting for passively powered sensor networks,” IEEE J.
Solid-State Circuits, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1287–1302, May 2008.
[9] L. R. Varshney, “Transporting information and energy simultaneously,”
in Proc. IEEE ISIT, Jul. 2008, pp. 1612–1616.
[10] P. Grover and A. Sahai, “Shannon meets Tesla: Wireless information
and power transfer,” in Proc. IEEE ISIT, 2010, pp. 2363–2367.
[11] R. Zhang and C. K. Ho, “MIMO broadcasting for simultaneous wire-
less information and power transfer,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM,
Dec. 2011, pp. 1–5.
[12] L. Liu, R. Zhang, and K.-C. Chua, “Wireless information transfer
with opportunistic energy harvesting,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 288–300, Jan. 2013.
[13] K. Huang and E. Larsson, “Simultaneous information and power transfer
for broadband wireless systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 61,
no. 23, pp. 5972–5986, Dec. 2013.
[14] D. W. K. Ng, E. S. Lo, and R. Schober, “Wireless information and power
transfer: Energy efficiency optimization in OFDMA systems,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 6352–6370, Dec. 2013.
[15] X. Zhou, R. Zhang, and C. K. Ho, “Wireless information and power
transfer in multiuser OFDM systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 2282–2294, Apr. 2014.
[16] Q. Zhang, X. Huang, Q. Li, and J. Qin, “Cooperative jamming aided
robust secure transmission for wireless information and power transfer
in MISO channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 906–915,
Mar. 2015.
[17] A. A. Nasir, X. Zhou, S. Durrani, and R. A. Kennedy, “Relaying
protocols for wireless energy harvesting and information process-
ing,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 3622–3636,
Jul. 2013.
[18] C. Zhong, H. A. Suraweera, G. Zheng, I. Krikidis, and Z. Zhang,
“Wireless information and power transfer with full duplex relay-
ing,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 3447–3461,
Oct. 2014.
[19] Z. Ding, S. M. Perlaza, I. Esnaola, and H. V. Poor, “Power allocation
strategies in energy harvesting wireless cooperative networks,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 846–860, Feb. 2014.
[20] K. Xiong, P. Fan, C. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Wireless information
and energy transfer for two-hop non-regenerative MIMO-OFDM relay
networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1595–1611,
Aug. 2015.
[21] X. Di, K. Xiong, P. Fan, and H.-C. Yang, “Simultaneous wire-
less information and power transfer in cooperative relay networks
with rateless codes,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 4,
pp. 2981–2996, Apr. 2017.
[22] K. Ishibashi, “Dynamic harvest-and-forward: New cooperative diversity
with RF energy harvesting,” in Proc. WCSP, 2014, pp. 1–5.
[23] I. Krikidis, “Relay selection in wireless powered cooperative networks
with energy storage,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 12,
pp. 2596–2610, Dec. 2015.
[24] I. Krikidis, S. Timotheou, S. Nikolaou, G. Zheng, D. W. K. Ng, and
R. Schober, “Simultaneous wireless information and power transfer in
modern communication systems,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 11,
pp. 104–110, Nov. 2014.
[25] K. Xiong, B. Wang, and K. J. R. Liu, “Rate-energy region of SWIPT
for MIMO broadcasting under nonlinear energy harvesting model,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 5147–5161, Aug. 2017.
[26] H. Ju and R. Zhang, “Throughput maximization in wireless powered
communication networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13,
no. 1, pp. 418–428, Jan. 2014.
[27] M. A. Abd-Elmagid, T. ElBatt, and K. G. Seddik, “Optimization of
wireless powered communication networks with heterogeneous nodes,”
in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, Dec. 2015, pp. 1–7.
[28] H. Kim, H. Lee, M. Ahn, H.-B. Kong, and I. Lee, “Joint subcarrier
and power allocation methods in full duplex wireless powered commu-
nication networks for OFDM systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 4745–4753, Jul. 2016.
[29] M. Shaqfeh and H. Alnuweiri, “Joint power and resource allocation for
block-fading relay-assisted broadcast channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1904–1913, Jun. 2011.
[30] Y. Li, W. Wang, J. Kong, W. Hong, X. Zhang, and M. Peng, “Power
allocation and subcarrier pairing in OFDM-based relaying networks,” in
Proc. IEEE ICC, May 2008, pp. 2602–2606.
[31] C. Zhong, G. Zheng, Z. Zhang, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Optimum
wirelessly powered relaying,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 22, no. 10,
pp. 1728–1732, Oct. 2015.
[32] Y. Gu, H. Chen, Y. Li, and B. Vucetic, “An adaptive transmission
protocol for wireless-powered cooperative communications,” in Proc.
IEEE ICC, Jun. 2015, pp. 4223–4228.
[33] H. Chen, Y. Li, J. L. Rebelatto, B. F. Uchôa-Filho, and B. Vucetic,
“Harvest-then-cooperate: Wireless-powered cooperative communica-
tions,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 1700–1711,
Apr. 2015.
[34] H. Ju and R. Zhang, “User cooperation in wireless powered communica-
tion networks,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, Dec. 2014, pp. 1430–1435.
[35] M. Zhong, S. Bi, and X.-H. Lin, “User cooperation for enhanced
throughput fairness in wireless powered communication networks,” in
Proc. ICT, 2016, pp. 1–6.
[36] X. Chen, C. Yuen, and Z. Zhang, “Wireless energy and information
transfer tradeoff for limited-feedback multiantenna systems with energy
beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 407–412,
Jan. 2014.
[37] Q. Sun, G. Zhu, C. Shen, X. Li, and Z. Zhong, “Joint beamform-
ing design and time allocation for wireless powered communication
networks,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1783–1786,
Oct. 2014.
[38] K. Xiong, C. Chen, G. Qu, P. Fan, and K. B. Letaief, “Group coop-
eration with optimal resource allocation in wireless powered commu-
nication networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 6,
pp. 3840–3853, Jun. 2017.
[39] K. Xiong, P. Fan, Y. Lu, and K. B. Letaief, “Energy efficiency with
proportional rate fairness in multirelay OFDM networks,” IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1431–1447, May 2016.
[40] M. Grant and S. Boyd. (Sep. 2013). CVX: MATLAB Software for
Disciplined Convex Programming, Version 2.0 Beta. [Online]. Available:
http://cvxr.com/cvx
[41] Y. Huang and D. P. Palomar, “Rank-constrained separable semidefinite
programming with applications to optimal beamforming,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 664–678, Feb. 2010.
[42] Y. Liang and V. V. Veeravalli, “Gaussian orthogonal relay channels:
Optimal resource allocation and capacity,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 3284–3289, Sep. 2005.
[43] Z.-Q. Luo, W.-K. Ma, A. M.-C. So, Y. Ye, and S. Zhang, “Semidefinite
relaxation of quadratic optimization problems,” IEEE Signal Process.
Mag., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 20–34, May 2010.