Energy Consumption Analysis of Energy Harvesting Systems With Power Grid
Energy Consumption Analysis of Energy Harvesting Systems With Power Grid
power grid in each case. The major contribution of this letter ^% ` %DWWHU\
M (QHUJ\/HYHO
is the derivation of recursive expressions for the grid energy % % % ĂĂ %1 % 1 ĂĂ
ation may result in extra delay and cause loss of energy. On + f (x + Eg − y) · fBi−2 (y) dy dx,
the other hand, in Strategy I, the transmission energy always Eg
G
E Ei = Eg · fBi−1 (x) dx. (2) + f (x + Eg − y) · fBi−2 (y) dy dx,
0 Eg
A close observation reveals that Bi−1 only depends on the (8)
power level at the previous slot, i.e., Bi−2 . Hence, we denote where fB0 (x) = f (x) and fB−1 (x) = δ (x) still hold.
the joint p.d.f. of Bi−1 and Bi−2 as fBi−1 ,Bi−2 (x, y), then We note that the expressions given in Eq. (5) and (8) are
fBi−1 (x) can be computed by averaging over Bi−2 , very general, and valid for EH systems with a continuous
energy arrival distribution. In the following, we show that the
fBi−1 (x) = fBi−1 ,Bi−2 (x, y) dy, (3) analysis can also be extended to the discrete scenario. In the
y∈Ω(x)
discrete case, Eg is assumed to be a positive integer. For sim-
where Ω (x) is integral domain of y. In Strategy I, Ω (x) = plicity, we consider the important case when {EiH }N −1
follow
H
i=0
[0, min{x, Eg }] [Eg , Eg + x], Eq.(3) can be rewritten as, the Poisson distribution, i.e., Pr Ei = k = k! , i =
−λ k
e λ
fBi−1 ,Bi−2 (x, y) dy 0, · · · , N − 1, k = 0, 1, · · · . Let us denote Eg − 1 as τ , then
y∈Ω(x) the discrete analogy of Eq.(5) and Eq.(8) can be written as,
min{x,Eg } Eg +x
N τ min{k,τ
} e−λ λ(k−j)
= fBi−1 ,Bi−2 (x, y) dy + fBi−1 ,Bi−2 (x, y) dy
0 Eg E EG = Eg · Pr (Bi−2 = j)
min{x,Eg } (k − j)!
i=1k=0 j=0
= fBi−1 |Bi−2 (x|y) fBi−2 (y) dy
k+Eg
0
e−λ λ(k−j+Eg )
Eg +x
+ Pr (Bi−2 = j) ,
+ fBi−1 |Bi−2 (x|y) fBi−2 (y) dy. (k − j + Eg )!
Eg j=Eg
(4) (9)
MAO et al.: ENERGY CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS OF ENERGY HARVESTING SYSTEMS WITH POWER GRID 613
and where
N
τ
τ Pr (Bi = k) =
e−λ λk ⎧ n (k) −λ k−l
E EG = Eg − k · · Pr (Bi−2 = j) ⎪ 1
Pr (B = l) · e λ
k! ⎪
⎪ l=0 i−1 (k−l)!
i=1 k=0 j=0 ⎪
⎪ n2 (k)
⎪
⎪ + q=Eg Pr (Bi−1 = q) · e(k+E
−λ k+Eg −q
λ
k+Eg
e λ −λ (k−j+Eg ) ⎪
⎪ −q)! ,
⎪
⎨
g
+ Pr (Bi−2 = j) , k≤M
(k − j + Eg )! τ M−l−1 e−λ λz
j=Eg
⎪
⎪ Pr (B = l) · 1 −
⎪
⎪ l=0 i−1
z=0 z!
M−q+τ e−λ λz
(10) ⎪
⎪ n2 (k)
⎪
⎪ + q=Eg Pr (Bi−1 = q) · 1 − z=0 .
e−λ ·λk
⎪
⎪ z!
respectively. Also, Pr (B0 = k) = , ∀k = 0, 1, · · · , ⎩
k! k=M
Pr (B−1 = 0) = 1.
Proposition 1: In Strategy I, Strategy II,
Δ G N
τ
lim E EiG = E E∞ = (Eg − λ · Ts )+ , (11) E EG = (Eg − k) · Pr (Bi−1 = k) , (16)
i→+∞
i=1 k=0
where (x)+ returns the larger
G value of x and 0. Also, Eq.(11) where
is an upper bound of E E∞ in Strategy II. Pr (Bi = k) =
Proposition 1 is conformed with Energy Conservation Law ⎧ τ
⎪ e−λ λk
and can be proved bythe Random Walk method similarly in ⎪
⎪ l=0 Pr (Bi−1 = l) · k!
N
E [E G ]
⎪
⎪ n2 (k) e−λ λk+Eg −q
[7]. Here, we denote i=1N i as E [E G ]. ⎪
⎪ + Pr (B = q) · ,
⎪
⎪ q=E g i−1 (k+Eg −q)!
⎪
⎨
k≤M
τ M−1 e−λ λz
IV. F INITE -S IZE BATTERY C ASE ⎪
⎪ l=0 Pr (Bi−1 = l) · 1 −
⎪ z=0 z!
⎪
⎪
⎪ n2 (k) M−q+τ e−λ λz
⎪
⎪ + Pr (B i−1 = q) · 1 − ,
In this section, we extend the results obtained in Section III ⎪
⎪
q=Eg z=0 z!
⎩
to the finite battery size case. We further assume the maximum k=M
battery level is larger than the required energy for information
transmission, i.e., M > Eg . where n1 (k) = min{k, τ } and n2 (k) = min{Eg + k, M }.
To this end, the remaining task is to evaluate the probability
With finite battery size, in both Strategy I and Strategy II,
that the battery level stays at a particular level. To address
the p.d.f. of B0 should be revised as,
this problem, we propose a Markov chain based approach.
M Specifically, we model the battery energy levels as the states
fB0 (x) = f (x) · U (x) + 1 − f (e) · de · δ (x − M ) . of a Markov Chain, i.e., Θ = {0, 1, 2, ..., M }. Then, the
0 transition probability matrix P = {pmn }(M+1)×(M+1) for
(12) Strategy I and Strategy II could be presented as follows:
If x ∈ [0, M ), U (x) = 1. Otherwise, U (x) = 0. Please note Strategy I,
that the appearance of δ (x − M ) in fBi (x) , i = 0, · · · , N −1 ⎧
is due to the fact that no more than M amount of energy can ⎪
⎪ Pr E H = n − m , m < Eg , n < M
⎪ H
⎨
be stored in the battery. Pr E = n − m + Eg , m ≥ Eg , n < M
Proposition 2: In finite battery size case, the average grid pmn = +∞ H
⎪
⎪ Pr E = k , m < Eg , n = M
energy consumptions are, in Strategy I, ⎪
⎩+∞
k=M−m H
k=M−m Pr E = k + Eg , m ≥ Eg , n = M
N (17)
Eg
E EG = Eg · fBi−1 ,Bi−2 (x, y) dydx, Strategy II,
i=1 0 y∈Ω(x) ⎧
(13) ⎪
⎪ Pr E H = n , m < Eg , n < M
⎪
⎨Pr E H = n − m + E
, m ≥ Eg , n < M
where Ω (x) = [0, min{x, Eg }] [Eg , min{Eg + x, M }].
pmn = +∞ H
g
And in Strategy II, ⎪
⎪ k=M Pr E = k , m < Eg , n = M
⎪
⎩+∞
H
N Pr E = k + Eg , m ≥ Eg , n = M
Eg k=M−m
(18)
E EG = (Eg − x) fBi−1 ,Bi−2 (x, y) dydx,
i=1 0 y∈Ω(x) Obviously, the Markov Chains for Strategies I and II are
(14) ergodic. Hence the limiting distribution of the battery energy
where Ω (x) = [0, Eg ) [Eg , min{Eg + x, M }]. levels π = [π0 , π2 , ..., πM ] always exists which can be
We now look into the discrete case, and assume that obtained by solving the following linear equation set,
{EiH }N −1
i.e., Pr (B0 = k) =
i=0 follow the Poisson distribution,
G
e−λ λk π·P=π
k! and Pr (B −1 = 0) = 1. Then E E can be computed M (19)
by, Strategy I, j=0 πj = 1.
G
N
τ Denote Emc as the average power consumption computed
E EG = Eg · Pr (Bi−1 = k) , (15) by Markov Chain method. Then, substituting π into the
G
i=1 k=0 discrete versions of Eq.(2) and Eq.(7), we get E[Emc ] =
614 IEEE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 2, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2013
250 1.6
80 Strategy I, M=1.2E
g Strategy I, λ=4W
Strategy II, M=1.2Eg
60 1.4 Strategy II, λ=4W
Strategy I, M=infinite Strategy I, λ=6W
200 40
Strategy II, M=infinite 1.2 Strategy II, λ=6W
20 Strategy I, M=2.4Eg
Strategy II, M=2.4E
0 g 1
E [E G ](J)
E E G (J)
150 4 5 6
8
6 0.8
100 4
0.6
2
0.4
50 0
7 8 9 10
0.2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 100 200 300 400 500
λ(W) N
Fig. 2. Relationship between E[E G ] and λ, with Eg = 5J and N = 50. Fig. 3. Relationship between E[E G ] and N (infinite capacity), Eg = 5J.
τ G
τ
Eg · j=0 πj in Strategy I and E[Emc ] = j=0 (Eg − j) · πj
2.5
in Strategy II. Strategy I, λ=4W
Strategy II, λ=4W
2 Strategy I, λ=6W
V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS Strategy II, λ=6W
In this section, we present numerical results to validate our
analytical expressions. We only consider the discrete case, and (J) 1.5
assume {EiH }N −1
i=0 are Poisson RVs and Ts = 1s.
G
E Emc