Wireless Energy Harvesting and Spectrum Sharing
in Cognitive Radio
S. Ali Mousavifar† , Yuanwei Liu‡ , Cyril Leung† , Maged Elkashlan‡ , and Trung Q. Duong∗
† Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Canada
‡ School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, UK
∗ School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK
Abstract—A wireless energy harvesting protocol is proposed
for a decode-and-forward relay-assisted secondary user (SU)
network in a cognitive spectrum sharing paradigm. An expression
for the outage probability of the relay-assisted cognitive network
is derived subject to the following power constraints: 1) the
maximum power that the source and the relay in the SU network
can transmit from the harvested energy, 2) the peak interference
power from the source and the relay in the SU network at the
primary user (PU) network, and 3) the interference power of the
PU network at the relay-assisted SU network. The results show
that as the energy harvesting conversion efficiency improves,
the relay-assisted network with the proposed wireless energy
harvesting protocol can operate with outage probabilities below
20% for some practical applications.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Energy harvesting has been proposed as a means to augment
battery usage or as an alternative source of energy in a variety
of applications. Energy harvesting refers to the process of
extracting energy from the surrounding environment. Recently,
with the emergence of embedded low power electronics such
as Micro-electromechanical (MEM) and low power wireless
sensor network (WSN) systems, batteries with limited energy
capacity can no longer serve as the sole energy provider of
the system over its life span [1][2]. Various sources of energy
such as thermal, solar, mechanical, wind, acoustic, wave, and
more recently wireless signals have been studied for energy
harvesting [1]-[8]. Wireless energy harvesting strategies for
point-to-point communication systems have been proposed in
[4]-[6]. The results from the studies have shown that wireless
energy harvesting can be a viable solution in prolonging the
lifetime of energy constrained systems. In [7], a data packet
scheduling (i.e. delay before transmission) is studied subject
to arrival rate and energy harvesting constraints. However, the
method for energy harvesting is not discussed. Two relay-
ing protocols for wireless energy harvesting, namely power
splitting receiver (PSR) and time switching relaying (TSR)
protocols, are proposed in [8]. In PSR protocol, a fraction of
signal power from the source is used for energy harvesting
and the remaining portion is used to retrieve information.
In TSR protocol, the relay harvests energy from the source
signal during the energy harvesting period and receives the
information and transmits the information to the destination
during the remainder of the period. Expressions for the outage
probability and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) are derived for
both protocols. In [8], only the relay is energy constrained
and capable of harvesting energy from the wireless signal
978-1-4799-4449-1/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE
transmitted by the source.
The wireless energy can be harvested from a variety of
signals in the surrounding environment, e.g., UHF and VHF
signals. In the context of cognitive radio, secondary users
(SUs), also known as unlicensed users, can use the energy
from the primary user (PU) signal to harvest energy. In
addition, the SUs can utilize the licensed spectrum under
two defined paradigms: overlay and underlay. The SUs can
transmit opportunistically, when the licensed spectrum is un-
used in the cognitive radio overlay paradigm [9]-[11]. In the
cognitive radio underlay paradigm, the SU network shares the
spectrum with the PU network as long as the interference
from the SU network to the PU network does not exceed
a predetermined threshold value [12][13]. The relay-assisted
cognitive radio is proposed to decrease the system outage
probability in [12]. The impact of power interference from
one PU transmitter on the system outage probability of an
SU network is also analyzed in [12]. The joint impact of the
interference power from multiple PU transmitters on the SU
network and that from the SU network on the PU network is
studied in [13]. In addition to power interference constraints,
the relay-assisted cognitive radio is constrained by the stored
energy and may require an external recharging mechanism
to sustain its operation. The cognitive radio in an underlay
paradigm in conjunction with energy harvesting is studied in
[14]-[16]. The capacity of a point-to-point SU network under
imperfect CSI is investigated in [14] and the achievable rate
in the SU network using opportunistic interference cancelation
is studied in [15]. To the best of our knowledge, the outage
probability in a cognitive relay network jointly with the use
of energy harvesting has not been studied.
In this paper we propose a wireless energy harvesting relay-
ing protocol for a decode-and-forward relay-assisted cognitive
network in a spectrum sharing paradigm. In the proposed
protocol, the source and the relay in the cognitive network
harvest energy from the PU signal. We consider three power
constraints and their impact on the system outage probability:
1) the maximum power the SU source or relay can transmit
from the harvested wireless energy, 2) the peak permissable
power from the SU source and the relay at PU receiver, and 3)
the interference power from the PU transmitter at the SU relay
and destination. The results demonstrate that as the energy
conversion efficiency rate increases, outage probabilities below
20% can be achieved. The terms “relay-assisted cognitive
network” and “SU network” are used interchangeably in
this paper. The remainder of this paper is organized as h1 h2
follows. In Section II, we present the system model for the S R D
energy harvesting relaying protocol and the transmit power
constraints. In Section III, we derive an expression for the
system outage probability of the relay-assisted cognitive radio f1 f2 f3
network. Illustrative results and conclusions are provided in
Sections IV and V, respectively.
g1 g2
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
As shown in Fig. 1, the PU network consists of a PU trans-
mitter (P Utx ) and a PU receiver, (P Urx ). The SU network PUrx PUtx

consists of one source (S), one relay (R), and one desti-
nation (D) where information is transferred from an energy
Figure 1. System Model
constrained source to the destination only via an energy con-
strained relay. There is no direct link between the source and
destination. The source and the relay can harvest energy from (a)
Energy Harvesting Information Transmission from the
at the Source Source to the Relay
the PU. However, we assume that the SU network incapable of (S) S ------ > R

storing the harvested energy for a long time. This assumption

is reasonable for SUs which are equipped with inexpensive
capacitors for energy storage due to to energy leakage. The (b)
Energy Harvesting at
the Relay
Information Transmission from the
Source to the Relay
Information Transmission from the
Relay to the Destination
(R) S ------ > R R ------ > D
SU network shares the spectrum with the PU network in
an underlay mode. The channel gain coefficients from the
source to the relay and from the relay to the destination are
αT (1 − α )T / 2 (1 − α )T / 2
denoted by h1 and h2 , respectively. The transmission power
from the SU network can cause interference at the receiver Figure 2. The proposed protocol: (a) at the source (b) at the relay
of the PU; therefore, a power constraint on the SU network
is imposed such that its interference power does not exceed
the peak permissable interference power, denoted by PI . The the destination. The protocol is illustrated in Fig. 2. Note that
channel gain coefficients from the source and the relay to the source is idle during the last slot (1−α)T
2 of the protocol
the PU receiver are denoted by g1 and g2 , respectively. The in Fig. 2 (a). It is natural to assume that the source can store
amount of power that the source and the relay can use during energy during this period for the next transmission. However,
transmission period is constrained by the amount of energy due to leakage and a long time to the energy harvested in the
they have harvested, denoted by Ehs and Ehr , respectively. next transmission any such energy will be depleted. The energy
The channel gain coefficients from the PU transmitter to the harvested using the time switching receiver (TSR) architecture
source, relay, and destination receiver are denoted by f1 , f2 , at the source and the relay are [17]
and f3 , respectively. The distances from the PU transmitter
ηPP Utx |f1 |2
to the source, relay, and destinations are d1 , d2 , and d3 Ehs = αT (3)
respectively. The PU network interference power received at dm
1
the relay and the destination are and
ηPP Utx |f2 |2
PP Utx |f2 |2 Ehr = αT, (4)
PI,R = (1) dm
2
dm
2
where |f1 |2 is the channel gain coefficients from P Utx to the
and
PP Utx |f3 |2 source and 0 < η < 1 is the energy conversion efficiency [17].
PI,D = , (2) The distances from the source and the relay to the receiver of
dm
3
the PU are d4 and d5 . The distances from the source to the
where PP Utx is the PU transmitter power, m is the path loss relay and from the relay to the destination are d6 and d7 . The
exponent. The relay and the source harvest energy from the maximum power that the source and the relay can transmit
PU signal for a duration of αT at the beginning of each based on the harvested energy are: (1−α)T
Ehs Ehr
/2 and (1−α)T /2 .
time slot, where T is the duration of one time slot and Therefore, the transmit power at the source and the relay are:
0 < α < 1. By changing the value of α, the source and
PI Ehs
relay have the flexibility to trade-off harvesting more energy Ps = min( |g |2 , ) (5)
against the reduction in throughput at the destination, in a 1 (1 − α)T /2
dm
4
time slot. The choice of α and its impact on the relay network
and
throughput is beyond the scope of this paper. We are currently PI Ehr
studying the scenario in which the relay can also harvest Pr = min( |g |2 , ), (6)
2 (1 − α)T /2
energy from the source. Subsequent to the harvesting period, dm
5

the source transmits information to the relay for a duration respectively. Flat Rayleigh fading channel is assumed for
equal to (1−α)T
2 . The relay then forwards, the information to all links. Hence, |h1 |2 , |h2 |2 , |g1 |2 , |g2 |2 , |f1 |2 , |f2 |2 , and
|f3 |2 are random variables (RV) distributed exponentially |g1 |2 , |g2 |2 , |f1 |2 , |f2 |2 , and |f3 |2 , with X1 , X2 , Y1 , Y2 ,
with parameters λ1 , λ2 , ω1 , ω2 , ν1 , ν2 , and ν3 . We have Z1 , Z2 , and Z3 hereafter. Conditioning the term P r{ΓR ≥
summarized the main used parameters for the derivation of γth , ΓD ≥ γth } in (7) on Z2 , we have
outage probability:  ∞
• η: the energy efficiency (0 < η < 1). Pout = 1 − Pr{ΓR ≥ γth |Z2 = z2 } ×
• α: the fraction of a time slot in which relay and the source 0

harvest energy from PU transmitter signal (0 < α < 1). Pr{ΓD ≥ γth |Z2 = z2 }fZ2 (z2 )dz2 ,
• PI : the peak permissable interference power at the PU (10)
receiver
• γth : the threshold SNR at the relay and destination where Pr{ΓR ≥ γth |Z2 = z2 } and Pr{ΓD ≥ γth |Z2 = z2 }
• PP Utx : the primary user transmit power are two independent event probabilities for a given Z2 = z2 .
• Ps : the source transmit power The term P r{ΓR ≥ γth |Z2 = z2 } can be obtained as
• Pr : the relay transmit power
Pr{ΓR ≥ γth |Z2 }
• d1 , d2 , and d3 : the distances from the PU transmitter to  
 PI dm
4
 X1 β2,6
the source, relay, and destination, respectively. = Pr min ρR Z1 , ≥ γth
2 2 2
• |f1 | , |f2 | , and |f3 | : the channel gain RVs for the links Y1 PP Utx Z2
 
from PU transmitter to the source, relay, and destination, Z2 PP Utx γth PI dm
4
= Pr X1 ≥ , Y1 ≤
respectively. Z1 ρR β2,6 Z1 ρR
• ν1 , ν2 , and ν3 : the exponential parameters corresponding
 

JR,I
to |f1 |2 , |f2 |2 , and |f3 |2 RVs, respectively.  
Y1 Z2 γth PP Utx PI dm4
• d4 and d5 : the distances from the source and relay to the + Pr X1 ≥ , ≤ Z1
PU receiver, respectively. PI β2,6 Y1 ρR
2 2
 

• |g1 | and |g2 | : the channel gain RVs for the links from JR,II
the source and relay to the PU receiver, respectively. (11)
• ω1 and ω2 : the exponential parameters corresponding to
|g1 |2 and |g2 |2 RVs, respectively. Conditioning JR,I in (11) on Z1 and taking the expected value
• d6 and d7 : the source-relay and the relay-destination of the results over the distribution of Z1 , we have
distances, respectively.  ∞ Z2 PP U γth
1 − tx P dm
− I 4
z1
2 2
• |h1 | and |h2 | : the channel gain RVs for the links JR,I = e z1 ρR λ1 β2,6 (1 − e z1 ρR ω1 )e− ν1 dz1 (12)
from the PU transmitter to the relay and destination, ν1 0
respectively. Similarly, we condition JR,II in (11) on Y1 and we take the
• λ1 and λ2 : the exponential parameters corresponding to expected value of the result over the distribution of Y1
|h1 |2 and |h2 |2 RVs, respectively.
 ∞ y1 Z2 γth PP Utx
1 − P mλ β P dm
− I 4
y1

III. O UTAGE P ROBABILITY JR,II = e Id4 1 2,6

e y1 ρR ν1 e− ω1 dy1
ω1 0
The outage probability, denoted by Pout , is defined as the (13)
probability that the equivalent signal to interference ratio (SIR)
at each hop is below a threshold value, γth . In this study, In the same manner, the term P r{ΓD ≥ γth |Z2 } in (10) can
we have neglected the effect of noise. In our system model, be obtained as
the decode-and-forward relay-assisted cognitive network is
Pr{ΓD ≥ γth |Z2 }
considered to be in outage when at least one of the links  
is suffering from link outage, i.e. the RV SIR at the relay,  PI dm
5
 X2 β3,7
= Pr min ρD Z2 , ≥ γth
denoted by ΓR , or the RV SIR at the destination, denoted by 
Y2 PP Utx Z3

ΓD , are below γth : PP Utx γth Z3 PI dm
5
= Pr X2 ≥ , Y2 ≤
= 1 − Pr{ΓR ≥ γth , ΓD ≥ γth }, Z2 ρD β3,7 Z2 ρD
Pout (7)  

JD,I
where  
γth PP Utx Y2 Z3 PI dm
 PI dm4
 |h1 |2 β2,6 + Pr X2 ≥ , Y2 ≥ 5
(14)
ΓR = min ρR |f1 |2 , , (8) PI β3,7 dm Z2 ρD
|g1 |2 PP Utx |f2 |2   5

JD,II
and
 PI dm5
 |h2 |2 β3,7 Since JD,I is conditioned on Z2 , the joint probability can be
ΓD = min ρD |f2 |2 , , (9)
|g2 |2 PP Utx |f3 |2 presented as the product of two independent probabilities
are functions of RV |f2 |2 and therefore, ΓR and ΓD are PP Utx γth Z3 PI dm
5
2ηPP Utx α JD,I = Pr{X2 ≥ } Pr{Y2 ≤ }
dependent. Note that we have replaced the constants dm (1−α) , ρD Z2 β3,7 ρD Z2
2ηPP Utx α dm dm
1
 
 

, d2m ,
and d3m with ρR , ρD , β2,6 , and β3,7 . respec- I1 I2
2 (1−α)
dm 6 7
tively. For notation simplicity, we will replace |h1 |2 , |h2 |2 , (15)
 1
where
 ∞
1 γth PP U Z3
− ρ Z β tx λ z3 0.9
I1 = e D 2 3,7 2 e− ν3 dz3
ν3 0
0.8

ρD Z2 β3,7 λ2 0.7
= (16)
γth PP Utx ν3 + ρD Z2 β3,7 λ2

out
0.6

P
P dm
− ρ IZ 5ω 0.5
and I2 = 1 − e D 2 2 . We condition JD,II on Z3 [Theo.] Scenario 1
[Sim.] Scenario 1
0.4
PP Utx Y2 Z3 γth PI dm
5
[Theo.] Scenario 2
JD,II |Z3 = Pr{X2 ≥ , Y2 ≥ } 0.3
[Sim.] Scenario 2
PI β3,7 dm5 ρD Z2 [Theo.] Scenario 3
 ∞ [Sim.] Scenario 3

1 PP U y2 Z3 γth
− P λtx β dm y
− ω2
0.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
= m
e I 2 3,7 5 e 2 dy
2
X−coordinante of PUtx (XPU )
ω2 PρI dZ5 tx

D 2

PI λ2 β3,7 dm
5 Figure 3. The outage probability as a function of the P Utx X-cooridinate.
=
5 + γth Z3 PP Utx ω2
PI λ2 β3,7 dm
P Iλ2 β3,7 dm
5 +γth Z3 PP Utx ω2
−
×e ρD Z2 λ2 β3,7 ω2
. each scenario, the outage probability increases as X-coordinate
(17) of P Utx increases because P Utx interference power at the
relay and destination increases. In addition, as the distances
Averaging JD,II over the PDF of Z3 we have, from the P Utx to the source and the relay increase, the
 ∞ amount of energy which can be harvested from the PU signal
JD,II = JD,II |Z3 fZ3 (z3 )dz3 decreases. For XP Utx = 0.75, the outage probability in
0
 ∞ Scenario 2 surpasses that of Scenario 1. In Scenario 1 at
1 PI λ2 β3,7 dm
5
= XP Utx = 0.75, the PU receiver is located farther from both the
ν3 0 PI λ2 β3,7 dm + γth 3 PP Utx ω2
Z
5
P Iλ2 β3,7 dm
relay and the destination compared to Scenario 2 and therefore,
5 +γth Z3 PP Utx ω2
− z3
×e ρD Z2 λ2 β3,7 ω2
e− ν3 dz3 the relay can transmit at higher transmit power (i.e. without
imposing higher than PI interference power at P Urx ) than in
(18)
Scenario 2. Fig. 4 shows the outage probability as a function
Using (12), (13), (15), and (18), we can obtain the outage
1
probability as [Theo.] γth=0dB

 ∞ 0.9
[Sim.] γth=0dB

1 [Theo.] γ =5dB

Pout = 1 − (JR,I + JR,II )

th
[Sim.] γth=5dB
0.8
ν2 0 [Theo.] γ =10dB
th
[Sim.] γth=10dB
z 0.7
− ν2
×(JD,I + JD,II )e 2 dz2
0.6
(19)
Pout

0.5

0.4
IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
0.3
In this section, numerical and analytical results are pre-
0.2
sented. The outage probability with respect to η, γth , PI ,
0.1
P Urx location, and P Utx location is studied here. The analyt- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
η (%)
ical results are validated via computer simulations. The noise
power is assumed to be negligible in the following simulations. Figure 4. The outage probability as a function of η
A two dimensional network topology is assumed, where the
locations of nodes are denoted by (X, Y ). The source, relay, of η for γth = 0, 5 and 10 dB. The parameter values used
and destination are located at (0, 0), (0.5, 0), and (1, 0) on for the results in Fig. 4 are: PP Utx = 2 dB, PI = 20 dB,
the X-Y plane. The mean of all the channel gain coefficients and the P Utx and P Urx locations are (0.5, 0.5) and (1, 0.5),
are assumed to be equal to 5, i.e. λ1 = 5, λ2 = 5, ω1 = 5, respectively. For a given γth , the outage probability decreases
ω2 = 5, ν1 = 5, ν2 = 5, ν3 = 5, and they remain the same as η increases. As η increases, more wireless energy is being
hereafter, unless it is stated otherwise. Fig. 3 shows the outage harvested at the source and the relay and therefore, more
probability in the SU network as a function of the X-coordinate energy is available for wireless transmission to the next hop.
of P Utx location (denoted by XP Utx on Fig. 3), where Y- For a given value of η, the outage probability increases as the
coordinate remains constant at 0.5. We show the results for minimum SIR requirement (i.e. γth ) at the source and the relay
three P Urx location scenarios: increases. Fig. 5 shows the outage probability as a function of
• Scenario 1: P Urx at (0, 0.5). PI for PP Utx = 2, 5 and 10 dB. The parameter values used for
• Scenario 2: P Urx at (0.5, 0.5). the results in Fig. 5 are: η = 20%, γth = 5 dB, and the P Utx
• Scenario 3: P Urx at (1, 0.5). and P Urx locations are (0.5, 0.5) and (1, 0.5), respectively.
The parameter values used for the results in Fig. 3) are: For a given value of PP Utx , the outage probability decreases as
η = 10%, PP Utx = 2 dB, PI = 20 dB, and γth = 5 dB. For PI increases. The relay and the source can transmit at higher
 1 constraints on the primary user network, and an interference
0.95
[Theo.] PPU = 2 dB
tx
imposed by primary user network on the secondary user cog-
0.9
[Sim.] PPU = 2 dB
tx
nitive network. A sensitivity analysis for the outage probability
0.85
[Theo.] PPU = 5 dB
tx
was presented and validated using computer simulations. The
0.8
[Sim.] P
PU
tx
= 5 dB results demonstrate that as the energy conversion efficiency
out

[Theo.] P
PU
= 10 dB rate is improved, the outage probabilities below 20% can be
P

0.75 tx
[Sim.] PPU = 10 dB
tx
achieved.
0.7

0.65
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
0.6

0.55
This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences
−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20
Maximum Interference SU may Incure at PU [P ] (dB)
rx I
and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada under
Grant RGPIN 1731-2013.
Figure 5. The outage probability as a PI
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Sudevalayam and P. Kulkarni, “Energy harvesting sensor nodes: Sur-
transmit power before they impose higher than PI interference vey and implications,” Proc. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials,
power at P Urx . For a given value of PI , it is shown that vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 443–461, Oct. 2011.
[2] R. Amirtharajah and A. Chandrakasan, “Self-powered signal processing
as PP Utx increases, so does the interference at the relay using vibration-based power generation,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State
and destination and hence, Pout increases. The interference Circuits, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 687–695, May 1998.
power imposed on the relay and destination offsets the energy [3] S. Chalasani and J. Conrad, “A survey of energy harvesting sources for
embedded systems,” in Proc. IEEE SoutheastCon, 2008, pp. 442–447.
harvested at the source and the relay for large PP Utx values. [4] L. Varshney, “Transporting information and energy simultaneously,” in
Fig. 6 shows the outage probability as a function of γth for Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT),
2008, pp. 1612–1616.
1 [5] P. Grover and A. Sahai, “Shannon meets tesla: Wireless information and
power transfer,” in Proc. IEEE ISIT, 2010, pp. 2363–2367.
0.9
[6] X. Zhou, R. Zhang, and C. K. Ho, “Wireless information and power
0.8 transfer: Architecture design and rate-energy tradeoff,” IEEE Transac-
0.7 tions on Communications, vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 4754–4767, Nov. 2013.
[7] M. Antepli, E. Uysal-Biyikoglu, and H. Erkal, “Optimal packet schedul-
0.6
ing on an energy harvesting broadcast link,” IEEE Journal on Selected
out

0.5 Areas in Communications, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1721–1731, Sep. 2011.
P

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
−40 −30 −20 −10
γ (dB)
th
Figure 6. The outage probability as a function of γth
three cases:
• Case 1: λ1 = λ2 = ω1 = ω2 = ν1 = ν2 = ν3 = 1
• Case 2: λ1 = λ2 = ω1 = ω2 = ν1 = ν2 = ν3 = 2
• Case 3: λ1 = λ2 = ω1 = ω2 = ν1 = ν2 = ν3 = 5
The parameter values used for the results in Fig. 6 are:
η = 10%, PI = 20 dB, PP Utx = 2 dB, and the P Utx
and P Urx locations are (0.5, 0.5) and (1, 0.5), respectively.In
each case, as γth increases, the probability that the γth is
unsatisfied in at least one link (i.e. source-to-relay and relay-to-
destination) increases and consequently, the outage probability
of the system increases. For a given value of γth , the outage
probability decreases as the channel gain coefficient increase.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
A wireless energy harvesting protocol for a relay-assisted
network in a cognitive spectrum sharing paradigm was pro-
posed. The outage probability of the relay-assisted cognitive
network with the proposed protocol was analyzed, subject
to the energy harvesting constraint, the interference power
[Theo.] Case 1 [8] A. Nasir, X. Zhou, S. Durrani, and R. Kennedy, “Relaying protocols for
[Sim.] Case 1
[Theo.] Case 2 wireless energy harvesting and information processing,” IEEE Transac-
[Sim.] Case 2 tions on Wireless Communications, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 3622–3636, 2013.
[Theo.] Case 3 [9] S. Lee, R. Zhang, and K. Huang, “Opportunistic wireless energy
[Sim.] Case 3
harvesting in cognitive radio networks,” Wireless Communications, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 4788–4799, September 2013.
0 10 20 30
[10] G. Zheng, Z. Ho, E. Jorswieck, and B. Ottersten, “Information and
energy cooperation in cognitive radio networks,” Signal Processing,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 2290–2303, May 2014.
[11] S. Park and D. Hong, “Optimal spectrum access for energy harvesting
cognitive radio networks,” Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 6166–6179, Dec. 2013.
[12] Y. Guo, G. Kang, N. Zhang, W. Zhou, and P. Zhang, “Outage perfor-
mance of relay-assisted cognitive-radio system under spectrum-sharing
constraints,” IET Electronics Letters, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 182–184, Jan.
2010.
[13] T. Duong, P. L. Yeoh, V. N. Q. Bao, M. Elkashlan, and N. Yang,
“Cognitive relay networks with multiple primary transceivers under
spectrum-sharing,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 19, no. 11, pp.
741–744, 2012.
[14] H. Suraweera, P. Smith, and M. Shafi, “Capacity limits and performance
analysis of cognitive radio with imperfect channel knowledge,” IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1811–1822,
May 2010.
[15] B. Maham, P. Popovski, X. Zhou, and A. Hjorungnes, “Cognitive
multiple access network with outage margin in the primary system,”
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 10, no. 10, pp.
3343–3353, Oct. 2011.
[16] C. Zhong, T. Ratnarajah, and K.-K. Wong, “Outage analysis of decode-
and-forward cognitive dual-hop systems with the interference constraint
in nakagami- m fading channels,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2875–2879, Jul. 2011.
[17] X. Zhou, R. Zhang, and C. K. Ho, “Wireless information and power
transfer: Architecture design and rate-energy tradeoff,” in Proc. IEEE
Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2012, pp. 3982–
3987.