IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION

1

Energy-Efficient Power Loading for OFDM-based
Cognitive Radio Systems with Channel
Uncertainties
arXiv:1801.05353v1 [eess.SP] 12 Jan 2018

Ebrahim Bedeer, Student Member, IEEE, Osama Amin, Member, IEEE, Octavia A. Dobre, Senior Member, IEEE,
Mohamed H. Ahmed, Senior Member, IEEE, and Kareem E. Baddour, Member, IEEE

Abstract—In this paper, we propose a novel algorithm to optimize the energy-efficiency (EE) of orthogonal frequency division
multiplexing-based cognitive radio systems under channel uncertainties. We formulate an optimization problem that guarantees
a minimum required rate and a specified power budget for the
secondary user (SU), while restricting the interference to primary
users (PUs) in a statistical manner. The optimization problem is
non-convex and it is transformed to an equivalent problem using
the concept of fractional programming. Unlike all related works
in the literature, we consider the effect of imperfect channel-stateinformation (CSI) on the links between the SU transmitter and
receiver pairs and we additionally consider the effect of limited
sensing capabilities of the SU. Since the interference constraints
are met statistically, the SU transmitter does not require perfect
CSI feedback from the PUs receivers. Simulation results show
that the EE deteriorates as the channel estimation error increases.
Comparisons with relevant works from the literature show that
the interference thresholds at the PUs receivers can be severely
exceeded and the EE is slightly deteriorated if the SU does not
account for spectrum sensing errors.
Index Terms—Cognitive radio, energy-efficiency, imperfect CSI
and sensing, OFDM systems, power loading.

I. I NTRODUCTION

C

OGNITIVE radio (CR) can considerably enhance the
spectrum utilization efficiency by dynamically sharing
the spectrum between licensed/primary users (PUs) and unlicensed/secondary users (SUs) [1]. This is achieved by granting
SUs opportunistic access to the white spaces within PUs spectrum, while controlling the interference to PUs. Orthogonal
frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) is recognized as an
attractive modulation technique for CR due to its spectrum
shaping flexibility, adaptivity in allocating vacant radio resources, and capability of analyzing the spectral activities of
Manuscript received January 18, 2014; revised April 26, 2014; accepted
July 12, 2014. The editor coordinating the review of this paper was Prof.
Hsiao-Hwa Chen.
This work has been supported in part by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) and in part by Natural Science and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through Discovery program.
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted.
However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be
obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
E. Bedeer, O. Amin, O. A. Dobre, and M. H. Ahmed are with the Faculty
of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL,
A1B 3X5, Canada (e-mail: {e.bedeer, oamin, odobre, mhahmed}@mun.ca).
O. Amin is with Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,
Assiut University, Assiut, 71516, Egypt, (e-mail: amin@aun.edu.eg).
K. E. Baddour is with the Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, ON,
K2H 8S2, Canada (e-mail: kareem.baddour@crc.gc.ca).
Digital Object Identifier

PUs [2]. Generally speaking, the interference introduced to
PUs bands in OFDM-based CR networks can be classified
as: 1) mutual interference (co-channel interference (CCI) and
adjacent channel interference (ACI)) between the SU and PUs
due to the non-orthogonality of their respective transmissions
[2] and 2) interference due to the SU’s imperfect spectrum
sensing capabilities [1].
Most of the existing research has focused on optimizing the
transmission rate of SUs while limiting the interference introduced to PUs to predefined thresholds (see, e.g., [3], [4] and
references therein). Recently, optimizing the energy-efficiency
(EE)—defined as the total energy consumed to deliver one
bit, or its inverse1—has received increasing attention due to
steadily rising energy costs and environmental concerns [5]–
[12]. Wang et al. in [6] optimized the EE of an OFDMbased CR network subject to power budget and interference
constraints; however, this comes at the expense of deteriorating
the rate of the SU. Oto et al. in [7] found the optimal packet
size that maximizes the EE of CR sensor networks while
maintaining acceptable interference levels to the licensed PUs.
In [8], Xie et al. investigated the problem of maximizing the
EE of heterogeneous cognitive radio networks coexisting with
femtocells. Wang et al. in [9] optimized the EE of OFDMbased CR system subject to PUs interference constraints and
different SUs rates. In [10], Mao et al. optimized the EE
of CR MIMO broadcast channels while guaranteeing certain
interference threshold at the PUs receivers. The same authors
optimized the EE of OFDM-based CR systems subject to
controlled interference leakage to PUs in [11]. To the authors’
knowledge, all prior research on optimizing the EE has assumed that the SU has perfect spectrum sensing capabilities
and perfect channel-state-information (CSI) for the links between the SU transmitter and receiver pairs [6]–[11]. However,
in practice sensing is not fully reliable due to SU hardware
limitations and variable channel conditions. Furthermore, it is
also of practical importance to study the impact of channel
estimation errors for the SU links on the EE optimization
problem.
In this paper, we formulate a novel EE optimization problem
for the SU subject to its total transmit power budget and
predefined quality-of-service (QoS) in terms of the minimum
supported rate, as well as statistical constraints on the CCI
1 The EE can be defined as the number of bits per unit energy. However, it
is common to define it as the total energy consumed to deliver one bit; please,
see [5]–[7].

2

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION

and ACI to existing PUs. The optimization problem considers channel estimation errors for the links between the SU
transmitter and receiver pairs, along with SU spectrum sensing
errors. Furthermore, the SU does not rely on perfect CSI for
the links between the SU transmitter and PUs receivers, since
the interference constraints are met statistically.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section
II introduces the system model. Section III analyzes the
optimization problem and outlines the proposed algorithm for
its solution. Simulation results are presented in Section IV,
while conclusions are drawn in Section V.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
A. System description
The available spectrum is assumed to be divided into L
subchannels that are licensed to L PUs. We assume that
the SU periodically senses the PUs spectrum in order to
identify vacant bands for its transmission. Without loss of
generality, we consider that the SU senses that subchannel
m, of bandwidth B, is vacant. However, due to the varying
channel conditions between the SU and PUs, the SU may
not detect the presence of the mth PU. This means that the
SU identifies the mth PU band as vacant when it is truly
occupied. This is referred to as a mis-detection error and it is
(m)
assumed to occur with a probability ρmd . On the other hand,
the SU may identify the ℓth PU band as occupied when it
is truly vacant. This is referred to as a false-alarm error and
(ℓ)
it is assumed to occur with a probability ρfa . Mis-detection
errors lead to severe co-channel interference to the mth PU,
while false-alarm errors result in the SU wasting transmission
opportunities.
B. Modeling the statistical CCI and ACI constraints with
imperfect SU sensing
Using the Bayes’ theorem and the law of total probability,
the probability that subchannel m is truly occupied under
the condition that the SU identified it to be vacant can be
expressed as [3]
(m)

(m)
βov

=

ρmd ρ(m)
(m)

(m)

ρmd ρ(m) + (1 − ρfa )(1 − ρ(m) )

,

(1)

where ρ(m) is the probability that the PU transmits on subchan(m)
nel m and βov represents the probability that the interference
due to mis-detection errors will be present in subchannel m,
which is determined to be vacant by the SU. Furthermore,
the probability that subchannel ℓ is truly occupied by the PU
under the condition that the SU identified it to be occupied
can be written as

only knowledge of the fading distribution type and its corresponding parameters of the channels on these links. This
is a reasonable assumption for certain wireless environments. For example, a Rayleigh distribution is usually assumed for the magnitude of the fading channel coefficients
in non-line-of-sight urban environments. The constraint on
the CCI from thePSU to the mth PU is formulated as
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
and G(m)
βov |Hsp |2 G(m) N
i=1 pi ≤ Pth , where Hsp
are the channel gain and the distance-based path loss2 to the
distant mth PU receiver, pi is the power allocated to subcarrier
(m)
i, i = 1, ..., N , and Pth is the interference threshold at the
(m)
mth PU receiver. Since Hsp is not perfectly known at the SU
transmitter, the CCI constraint is limited below the threshold
(m)
(m)
Pth with at least a probability of Ψth . This is formulated
(m)
(m) 2 (m) PN
(m)
(m)
as Pr βov |Hsp | G
≥ Ψth . A noni=1 pi ≤ Pth
line-of-sight propagation environment is assumed; therefore,
(m)
the channel gain Hsp can be modeled as a zero-mean com(m)
plex Gaussian random variable, and, hence, |Hsp |2 follows
the exponential distribution [14]. After some mathematical
manipulations, the CCI statistical constraints can be expressed
PN
(m)
(m)
1
1
 ν
P
as
(m)
(m)
th , where ν (m) is
i=1 pi ≤
(m)
βov

G

− ln(1−Ψth )

the mean of the exponential distribution. To further reflect
the SU transmitter’s power amplifier limitations and/or satisfy
regulatory maximum power limits, the total SU
PNtransmit power
is limited to a certain threshold Pth as
i=1 pi ≤ Pth .
Therefore, the constraint on the SU total transmit power can
be generalized as

−
N
(m)
X
1
ν
(m)

 Pth  ,(3)
pi ≤ Pth , (m)
(m) − ln(1 − Ψ(m) )
β
G
ov
i=1
th

where [x, y]− represents min(x, y). The ACI is mainly due to
the power spectral leakage of the SU subcarriers to the PUs
receivers. This depends on the power allocated to each SU
subcarrier and the spectral distance between the SU subcarriers
and the PUs receivers. Similar to the CCI constraint, the
statistical ACI constraint can be written as
N
X
i=1

(ℓ)

pi ̟i

≤

ν (ℓ)

1

(ℓ)
 Pth
,
(ℓ)
βoo G(ℓ) − ln(1 − Ψ(ℓ)
)
th



ℓ = 1, ..., L,
(4)

1
where ν (ℓ)
and G(ℓ) are the mean of the exponential distribution and the distance-based path loss to the ℓth PU and
R f + Bℓ
(ℓ)
̟i = Ts i,ℓ B2ℓ sinc2 (Ts f ) df , with Ts as the SU OFDM
fi,ℓ − 2
symbol duration, fi,ℓ as the spectral distance between the
SU subcarrier i and the ℓth PU frequency band, Bℓ as the
bandwidth of the ℓth PU, and sinc(x) = sin(πx)
πx .

(ℓ)

(ℓ)
βoo
=

(1 − ρmd )ρ(ℓ)

(2)

C. Modeling the imperfect CSI on the link between the SU
transmitter and receiver

Note that for perfect sensing βov = 0 and βoo = 1.
Estimating the channel gains between the SU transmitter
and the PUs receivers is challenging without the PUs cooperation. Hence, we assume that the SU transmitter has

Unlike all the previous works in the literature that assume perfect CSI for the links between the SU transmitter

(ℓ)

(ℓ)

(1 − ρmd )ρ(ℓ) + ρfa (1 − ρ(ℓ) )
(m)

(ℓ)

.

2 The SU is assumed to know the PUs location information by accessing a
Radio Environment Map [13].

BEDEER et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENT POWER LOADING FOR OFDM-BASED COGNITIVE RADIO SYSTEMS

and receiver pairs [6]–[11], we consider the effect of the
channel estimation errors on these links. The channel is
assumed to change slowly and is modeled as a time-invariant
finite impulse response system with order equal to Nch ,
h = [h(0), h(1), · · · , h(Nch )]T , where each channel tap is
assumed to be complex Gaussian distributed with zero-mean
and variance σh2 . To avoid the intersymbol interference, a
cyclic prefix is added at the SU transmitter and removed at the
receiver. The noise at the SU receiver is modeled as additive
white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with zero mean and correlation
matrix equal to σn2 I, where I is the identity matrix. The training pilot symbols b are added to the precoded block, where
the receiver knows the pilot pattern and estimates the channel
using the linear minimum
square estimator (LMMSE) as
−1mean
2 −1
H
H
ĥ = σn Rh + B B
B x, where x is the received block
and B is an N × (Nch + 1) column wise circulant matrix with
the first column equal to x [15]. The subchannel estimates
are computed as [15] [Ĥ(1), Ĥ(W ), . . . , Ĥ(W N −1 )]T =
√
N FNch ĥ, where W = ej2π/N , FNch is a submatrix of
F corresponding to the first Nch + 1 columns, and F is
the N × N discrete Fourier transform
√ matrix with the (l, n)
element defined as [F]l,n = W −ln / N . The channel capacity
is expressed in terms of the channel estimate across subcarriers
[15], while taking the interference from the PUs into account,
as


2
i
N
Ĥ
W
G
p
X
i


,
(5)
log2 1 + 2
c(p) = ∆f
2 +J 
σ
G
p
+
σ
i
i
n
∆H
i=1

where ∆f is the subcarrier bandwidth, p = [p1 , ..., pN ]T is
the vector representing the power allocated to each subcarrier,
G is the distance-based path loss, Ji is the interference
from the PUs to subcarrier i of the SU (it depends on the
SU receiver windowing function and power spectral density
2
of the PUs [16]), and σ∆H
is the minimum mean square
error (MMSE) of the channel estimate. The latter can be
2
expressed as σ∆H
= ((Nch + 1) σh2 σn2 )/(σn2 + σh2 GPpilots ),
where Ppilots is the pilots’ transmitted power [15].
III. O PTIMIZATION P ROBLEM
A LGORITHM

AND

the minimum required SU rate. The objective function in (6) is
non-convex; hence, OP1 is non-convex and the global optimal
solution is not guaranteed. The non-convex optimization problem in (6) can be transformed to an equivalent optimization
problem using the concept of fractional programming [17]. Let
us define a new objective function as

Φ(p, q) = κ

pi + pc − q c(p),

(7)

where q is a non-negative parameter/constant (and not a
variable). We define a new optimization problem OP2 as
min Φ(p, q),

OP2 :

subject to

pi

C1—C3. (8)

It was shown in [17] that at a certain value of the parameter
q, denoted as q ∗ , the optimal solution of OP2 is also the
optimal solution to OP1. Hence, finding the optimal power
allocation p∗ of OP1 can be realized by finding the optimal
power allocation p∗ (q) of OP2; then update the value of
q until it reaches q ∗ [17]. Following [17], let us define
Φmin (q) = min{Φ(p, q)|p ∈ S} to be the minimum of
pi

Φ(p, q), where S is the non-empty feasible region of OP1 and
∗
OP2
of ηEE (p), i.e., q ∗ = ηEE (p∗ ) =
PNand q∗ is the minimum
∗
(κ i=1 pi + pc )/(c(p )). If Φmin (q ∗ ) = 0, then the power
that corresponds to q ∗ = ηEE (p∗ ) is the optimal solution of
OP1 [17]. OP2 can be solved by applying the Karush-KuhnTucker (KKT) conditions [18], where the Lagrangian function
is expressed as

L(p, y, λ) = κ

N
X

pi
i=1
N
hX

+ λ1

+ pc − q c(p)
pi

i=1

A. Optimization problem formulation and analysis

where κ is a constant that depends on the power amplifier
efficiency, pc is the circuitry power consumption, and Rth is

N
X
i=1

P ROPOSED

Our target is to optimize the SU EE, under channel uncertainties, while guaranteeing a total transmit power budget,
limiting the CCI and ACI to the mth and ℓth PUs receivers
below certain thresholds with a predefined probability, and
ensuring the SU QoS in terms of a minimum supported rate.
In this paper, we minimize the EE defined as the total energy
consumed to deliver one bit. Accordingly, the optimization
problem is formulated as
PN
κ i=1 pi + pc
OP1 : min ηEE =
pi
c(p)
subject to
C1 : (3), C2 : (4), C3 : c(p) ≥ Rth , (6)

3


− Pth ,

+

L
X

(ℓ)
λ2

i
ν (m)
(m) −
2


P
+
y
1
th
(m)
βov G(m) − ln(1 − Ψ(m)
th )
1

N
hX

(ℓ)

pi ̟i

i=1

ℓ=1

1

ν (ℓ)

(ℓ)
(ℓ)
 Pth
+ y2
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
βoo G
− ln(1 − Ψth )


+ λ3 Rth − c(p) + y32 ,

−



(ℓ)

(ℓ)2

2

i

where λ = [λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ]T and y = [y12 , y2 , y32 ]T , ℓ =
1, ..., L, are the vectors of the Lagrange multipliers and slack
variables, respectively. A stationary point can be found when

(9)

4

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION

∇L(p, y, λ) = 0, which yields

CCI/total transmit power constraint, active ACI constraint, and
inactive/active rate constraint, respectively.
(ℓ)
∆f
2 +J )
−
(q+λ3 )|Ĥ (W i )|2 G (σn
i
—Case 7 & 8: setting y1 = 0, y2 = 0, and λ3 = 0 (case
ln(2)
∂L
2 +J )(2σ2
2 +J )2
∂pi = σ2
G2 (σ2
+|Ĥ (W i )|2 )p2 +G (σn
+|Ĥ (W i )|2 )pi + (σn
i
i
∆H
∆H
i
∆H
7)/y3 = 0 (case 8) results in the optimal solution for active
L
X
CCI/total transmit power constraint, active ACI constraint, and
(ℓ) (ℓ)
(10a) inactive/active rate constraint, respectively.
+κ + λ1 +
λ2 ̟i = 0,
ℓ=1
"
#−
N
X
1
∂L
ν (m)
(m)
B. Proposed algorithm and complexity analysis
pi − Pth , (m)
=
P
(m) (− ln(1 − Ψ(m) )) th
∂λ1
β
G
ov
i=1
th
The proposed algorithm can be formally stated as follows:
+y12 = 0,
(10b)
N
X
1
ν (ℓ)
∂L
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
Proposed Algorithm
−
p
̟
=
Pth
i
i
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
∂λ2
βoo G (− ln(1 − Ψth ))
(m)
(ℓ)
(m)
(m)
(ℓ)
(m)
(ℓ)
i=1
(ℓ)2

+y2

 ,2ν , G , G , Ψth ,
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
(m)
, ∆f , N , δ > 0, q =
Ψth , βov , βoo , G, σn2 , Ĥ W i , σ∆H
qinitial and Φmin = −∞.
2: while Φmin (q) < −δ do
3:
- assume the optimal
solution p∗i belongs to case

−
PN ∗
(m)
(m)
1
 ν
P
1, i.e.,
p
<
P
,
,
th
i
(m)
(m)
th
i=1
βov G(m) − ln(1−Ψth )
PN ∗ (ℓ)
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
1
 ν
P
< (ℓ)
(ℓ)
th , and c(p) > Rth .
i=1 pi ̟i
(ℓ)
1: INPUT Pth , Pth , Pth , Rth , ν

= 0,

(10c)

∂L
= Rth − c(p) + y32 = 0,
(10d)
∂λ3
∂L
= 2λ1 y1 = 0,
(10e)
∂y1
∂L
(ℓ) (ℓ)
= 2λ2 y2 = 0,
(10f)
(ℓ)
∂y2
∂L
= 2λ3 y3 = 0,
(10g)
∂y3
It can be seen that (10a)–(10g) represent N +2L+4 equations
in the N + 2L + 4 unknown components of the vectors p, y,
and λ. From (10a), the optimal power allocation per subcarrier
is given as
 2
h 
(σn + Ji )
∗
p i = χi − 1 + 1 −
G

∆f
i 2 
ln(2) (q + λ3 )|Ĥ W |
−
PL
(ℓ) (ℓ)
κ + λ1 + ℓ=1 λ2 ̟i
1/2 i+
2
, (11)

2
+ |Ĥ (W i )|2
χi 2σ∆H

βoo G

4:
5:

6:
7:
8:

9:

− ln(1−Ψth )
(ℓ)

- find p∗i from (11) when λ1 = λ2 = λ3 = 0.
if in Step 3, the assumption on the CCI/total transmit power
constraint is true, the assumption on the ACI constraint is true,
and the assumption on the rate constraint is not true then.
- the optimal solution belongs to case 2, i.e., find nonnegative λ3 from (11) such that c(p) = Rth .
- if the assumption on the CCI/total transmit power and
ACI constraints are violated, then p∗i = 0.
else if in Step 3, the assumption on the CCI/total transmit
power constraint is not true, the assumption on the ACI constraint
is true, and the assumption on the rate constraint is true then
- the optimal solution belongs to case
PN 3,∗ i.e.,
find non-negative λ1 from (11) such that
=
i=1 pi
−

(m)
(m)
1
 ν
P
.
Pth , (m)
(m)
th
(m)
βov

− ln(1−Ψth )

G

- if the assumption on the rate constraint is violated, then
p∗i = 0.
11:
else if in Step 3, the assumption on the CCI/total transmit
where
[x]+
represents
max(0, x)
and
the
power constraint is not true, the assumption on the ACI constraint
value
of
χi
is
calculated
as
χi
=
is true, and the assumption on the rate constraint is not true then
2
2
2
((σn2 + Ji )(2σ∆H
+ |Ĥ(W i )|2 ))/(2σ∆H
(σ∆H
+ |Ĥ(W i )|2 )G). 12:
- the optimal solution belongs to case P
4, i.e., find
N
∗
(ℓ)
non-negative λ1 and λ3 from (11) such that
=
In (11), the values of the Lagrangian multipliers λ1 , λ , and
i=1 pi

10:

2

λ3 are determined based on whether the constraints on the
CCI/total transmit power, ACI, and rate are active or inactive,
respectively (a constraint on the form Γ(x) ≤ Γth is said to
be inactive if Γ(x) < Γth , while it is active if Γ(x) = Γth ).
Equation (10e) implies that either λ1 = 0 or y1 = 0, (10f)
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
implies that either λ2 = 0 or y2 = 0, and (10g) implies
that either λ3 = 0 or y3 = 0. Hence, eight possible cases
exist, as follows:
(ℓ)
—Cases 1 & 2: setting λ1 = 0, λ2 = 0, and λ3 = 0 (case
1)/y3 = 0 (case 2) results in the optimal solution for inactive
CCI/total transmit power constraint, inactive ACI constraints,
and inactive/active rate constraint, respectively.
(ℓ)
—Case 3 & 4: setting y1 = 0, λ2 = 0, and λ3 = 0 (case
3)/y3 = 0 (case 4) results in the optimal solution for active
CCI/total transmit power constraint, inactive ACI constraint,
and inactive/active rate constraint, respectively.
(ℓ)
—Case 5 & 6: setting λ1 = 0, y2 = 0, and λ3 = 0 (case
5)/y3 = 0 (case 6) results in the optimal solution for inactive

Pth ,

ν (m)

1

(m)
(m)
βov G(m) − ln(1−Ψth )



(m)
P
th

−

and c(p) = Rth .

- if the assumption on the ACI constraint is violated, then
p∗i = 0.
14:
else if in Step 3, the assumption on the CCI/total transmit
power constraint is true, the assumption on the ACI constraint is
not true, and the assumption on the rate constraint is true then
15:
- the optimal solution belongs to P
case 5, i.e., find
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
N
∗
=
non-negative λ2 from (11) such that
i=1 pi ̟i
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
ν
1

P
.
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
th
(ℓ)

13:

βoo G

− ln(1−Ψth )

- if the assumption on the rate constraint is violated, then
p∗i = 0.
17:
else if in Step 3, the assumption on the CCI/total transmit
power constraint is true, the assumption on the ACI constraint
is not true, and the assumption on the rate constraint is not true
then
18:
- the optimal solution belongs to caseP
6, i.e., find non(ℓ)
(ℓ)
N
∗
negative λ2 and λ3 from (11) such that
=
i=1 pi ̟i
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
1
 ν
P
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
th and c(p) = Rth .
(ℓ)

16:

βoo G

− ln(1−Ψth )

BEDEER et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENT POWER LOADING FOR OFDM-BASED COGNITIVE RADIO SYSTEMS

5

- if the assumption on the CCI/total transmit power
constraint is violated, then p∗i = 0.
20:
else if in Step 3, the assumption on the CCI/total transmit
power constraint is not true, the assumption on the ACI constraint
is not true, and the assumption on the rate constraint is true then
21:
- the optimal solution belongs to case P
7, i.e., find
(ℓ)
N
∗
=
non-negative
λ1 and λ2 from (11)
i=1 pi
− such that

P
(m)
(m)
(ℓ)
N
∗
1
 ν
P
Pth , (m)
and
=
(m)
th
i=1 pi ̟i
(m)
βov

G

− ln(1−Ψth )

(ℓ)

(ℓ)
1
 ν
P
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
th .
βoo G(ℓ) − ln(1−Ψth )

22:

- if the assumption on the rate constraint is violated, then

p∗i = 0.
else if in Step 3, the assumption on the CCI/total transmit
power constraint is not true, the assumption on the ACI constraint
is not true, and the assumption on the rate constraint is not true
then
24:
- the optimal solution belongs to case 8, i.e.,
(ℓ)
find non-negative λ1 , λ2 , and λ3 from (11) such
−
PN ∗
(m)
1
ν (m)


that
p
=
P
,
P
,
th
(m)
(m)
th
i=1 i
βov G(m) − ln(1−Ψth )
PN ∗ (ℓ)
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
1
 ν
P
= (ℓ)
(ℓ)
th , and c(p) = Rth .
i=1 pi ̟i
(ℓ)

Energy-Efficiency (×10−5 J/bit)

19:

1.2

10

1.1

9

1

8
Rate

0.9

2
σ∆H
=0
2
σ∆H
= 0.01
2
σ∆H
= 0.1

0.8
0.7

7
6
5

Rate (×105 bit/s)

Proposed Algorithm (continued)

EE

0.6

4

23:

else
- p∗i = 0.
end if
- update Φmin (q) = min{Φ(p, q)}|p ∈ S}
pi
P
∗
κ N
i=1 pi +pc
.
c(p)

29:
- Calculate q =
30: end while
31: OUTPUT q ∗ = q and p∗i , i = 1, ..., N .

Efficient algorithms are presented in [19] to find the
(ℓ)
Lagrange multipliers λ1 and λ2 , and λ3 that satisfy the
CCI/total transmit power, ACI, and rate constraints, respectively, with complexity order of O(N ). Accordingly, the
complexity order of the proposed algorithm can be O(Nq N 2 ),
where Nq is the number of executions of the while loop.
The average (over the number of channel realizations) value
for Nq is 4 for δ = 10−8 and 4.46 for δ = 10−14 ; both
values are significantly lower than the number of subcarriers
N . Hence, the complexity of the proposed algorithm is of the
order O(N 2 ).
IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
Without loss of generality, we assume that the OFDM SU
coexists with one frequency-adjacent PU and one co-channel
PU. The SU parameters are chosen as follows: number of
subcarriers N = 128 and subcarrier spacing ∆f = 1.25NMHz =
9.7656 kHz. The propagation path loss parameters are as
follows: distance between SU transmitter and receiver pair = 1
km, distance to the ℓth PU dℓ = 1.2 km, distance to the mth
PU dm = 1.5 km, reference distance = 100 m, exponent
3×108
= 4, and wavelength = 900×10
6 = 0.33 meters. A Rayleigh
fading environment is considered with Nch = 5, where the
average channel power gains between the SU transmitter and
(ℓ)
the receiver of the ℓth PU E{|Hsp |2 } and between the SU
(m)
transmitter and the receiver of the mth PU E{|Hsp |2 } are
2
−16
set to 0 dB. σn is assumed to be 4 × 10
W, the PUs signal
is assumed to be an elliptically filtered white noise process

6

8
10
12
14
(m)
Pth (×10−13 W)

16

18

3
20

1.4

10
9

1.2
8
Rate

1

7

2
Rth = 0, σ∆H
=0
2
Rth = 6 × 105 bit/s, σ∆H
=0
2
Rth = 6 × 105 bit/s, σ∆H
= 0.01

0.8

6

2
Rth = 6 × 105 bit/s, σ∆H
= 0.1

5

EE

Rate (×105 bit/s)

25:
26:
27:
28:

− ln(1−Ψth )

4

2
on the SU performance.
Fig. 1. Effect of σ∆H

Energy-Efficiency (×10−5 J/bit)

βoo G

0.5
2

0.6
4
0.4
2

4

6

8 (m) 10
12
14
Pth (×10−13 W)

16

18

3
20

2
Fig. 2. Effect of Rth and σ∆H
on the SU performance.

[16] of variance 4 × 10−16 W, pc = Pth = 2 W, κ = 7.8,
(m)
(ℓ)
(m)
(ℓ)
δ = 10−8 , Ψth = Ψth = 0.9, and Pth = Pth = 10−13
W. Representative results are presented in this section, which
were obtained through Monte Carlo trials for 104 channel
realizations. Unless otherwise mentioned, imperfect spectrum
sensing is assumed. Following [3] and in order to favor the
(m)
PUs protection, ρmd is uniformly distributed over the interval
(m)
[0.01, 0.05], and it is lower than ρfa , which is uniformly
distributed over the interval [0.01, 0.1]. ρ(m) and ρ(ℓ) are
uniformly distributed between [0, 1] and the EE, measured
in J/bits, is the total energy consumption to deliver one bit.
In Fig. 1, the EE (in J/bits) and the transmission rate (in
(m)
bits/sec) of the SU are depicted as a function of Pth , for
2
Rth = 0 and different values of σ∆H
. As can be seen,
(m)
the EE decreases and the rate increases as Pth increases,
(m)
and both saturate for higher values of Pth . This can be
(m)
explained, as for lower values of Pth the total transmit power
(m)
is limited, and increasing Pth increases the transmit power,
and, hence, enables the proposed algorithm to improve both
the EE and rate of the SU. The EE keeps improving until

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION

1.6

3.5

[6]
Proposed algorithm

Energy-Efficiency (×10−5 J/bit)

Interference to mth PU (×10−13 W)

4

3
2.5
2
1.5
Interference threshold at mth PU

1
0.5
0
0

0.5

1
Pth (W)

1.5

2

50
[6]
Proposed algorithm

1.4

40

1.2

30

1

Rate

20

EE

10

0.8

0.6
0

0.5

1
Pth (W)

1.5

Rate (×105 bit/s)

6

0
2

Fig. 3. Comparison with the work in [6] to show the effect of perfect and
imperfect sensing assumptions on the interference leaked to the mth PU.

Fig. 4. Comparison with the work in [6] to show the effect of perfect and
imperfect sensing assumptions on the EE and the rate of SU.

the optimal power budget is reached, after which a further
(m)
increase in Pth does not improve the EE, and, hence, the
2
rate is kept constant. As the value of σ∆H
increases, i.e., the
estimation error increases, both the EE and the rate deteriorate
accordingly.

In this paper, we proposed an optimal power loading
algorithm that optimizes the EE of an OFDM-based CR
system under different channel uncertainties. The algorithm
considers the channel estimation errors for the links between
the SU transmitter and receiver pairs and also the effect of
the imperfect sensing capabilities of the SU. Further, the
algorithm does not require perfect CSI for the links from the
PUs receivers to the SU transmitter. Simulation results showed
that increasing the channel estimation errors deteriorates the
EE. Further, they showed that assuming that the SU has
perfect sensing capabilities deteriorates the EE and violates the
interference constraints at the PUs receivers. Additionally, the
results demonstrated that the proposed algorithm guarantees a
minimum QoS for the SU at the expense of deteriorating the
EE.

V. C ONCLUSIONS

(m)

Fig. 2 depicts the SU EE and rate as a function of Pth , for
2
2
different values for Rth and σ∆H
. As expected, for σ∆H
= 0,
5
increasing Rth from 0 to 6×10 bits/sec guarantees the SU rate
(m)
at low values of Pth (i.e., when the rate drops below 6 × 105
bits/sec); however, this comes at the expense of increasing the
EE. On the other hand, for Rth = 6 × 105 bits/sec, increasing
the estimation error deteriorates both the rate and the EE of
(m)
(m)
the SU at high values of Pth ; for low values of the Pth ,
the SU maintains its required rate but this at the expense of
increasing the EE.
In order to show the effect of assuming perfect spectrum
sensing, Figs. 3 and 4 compare the interference introduced into
the mth PU band, and the EE and rate, respectively, for the
proposed algorithm and the work in [6] that assumes perfect
2
sensing capabilities for the SU. We set σ∆H
= 0 and Rth = 0
in the proposed algorithm, in order to match the conditions
in [6]. As can be seen in Fig. 3, if the sensing errors are not
taken into consideration when optimizing the EE as in [6] (i.e.,
the SU is assumed to sense the PUs bands perfectly, which is
not true in practice), then the interference leaked in the mth
PU band exceeds the threshold (note that this is due to the
increase of the transmit power for the case of perfect spectrum
sensing assumption). On the other hand, if the sensing errors
are considered in the optimization problem (i.e., the SU is
assumed to sense the PUs bands with a certain probability of
error), then the interference to the mth PU band is below the
threshold. In Fig. 4 and as expected, the SU rate is higher
if perfect spectrum sensing is assumed because the transmit
power is higher. Additionally, the EE (in J/bits) is higher when
compared to its counterpart that considers spectrum sensing
errors due to increasing the transmit power as discussed in
Fig. 3.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the Editor and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback which helped us to considerably improve the quality of the manuscript.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. Cabric, “Addressing feasibility of cognitive radios,” IEEE Signal
Process. Mag., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 85–93, Nov. 2008.
[2] X. Wang, H. Li, and H. Lin, “A new adaptive OFDM system with
precoded cyclic prefix for dynamic cognitive radio communications,”
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 431–442, Feb. 2011.
[3] S. M. Almalfouh and G. L. Stüber, “Interference-aware radio resource
allocation in OFDMA-based cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1699–1713, May 2011.
[4] G. Bansal, M. Hossain, and V. Bhargava, “Adaptive power loading
for OFDM-based cognitive radio systems with statistical interference
constraint,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., no. 99, pp. 1–6, Sep. 2011.
[5] O. Amin, S. Bavarian, and L. Lampe, Cooperative techniques for energyefficient wireless communications in green radio comunication networks.
Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[6] Y. Wang, W. Xu, K. Yang, and J. Lin, “Optimal energy-efficient power
allocation for OFDM-based cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 1420–1423, Sep. 2012.
[7] M. C. Oto and O. B. Akan, “Energy-efficient packet size optimization
for cognitive radio sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1544–1553, Apr. 2012.

BEDEER et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENT POWER LOADING FOR OFDM-BASED COGNITIVE RADIO SYSTEMS

[8] R. Xie, F. Yu, H. Ji, and Y. Li, “Energy-efficient resource allocation for
heterogeneous cognitive radio networks with femtocells,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 3910–3920, Nov. 2012.
[9] S. Wang, M. Ge, and W. Zhao, “Energy-efficient resource allocation for
OFDM-based cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61,
no. 8, pp. 3181–3191, May 2013.
[10] J. Mao, G. Xie, J. Gao, and Y. Liu, “Energy efficiency optimization
for cognitive radio MIMO broadcast channels,” IEEE Commun. Lett.,
vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 337–340, Feb. 2013.
[11] ——, “Energy efficiency optimization for OFDM-based cognitive radio
systems: A water-filling factor aided search method,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 2366–2375, May 2013.
[12] O. Amin and L. Lampe, “Opportunistic energy efficient cooperative
communication,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 412–
415, 2012.
[13] Y. Zhao, L. Morales, J. Gaeddert, K. K. Bae, J.-S. Um, and J. H. Reed,
“Applying radio environment maps to cognitive wireless regional area

7

networks,” in IEEE DySPAN 2007, Apr. 2007, pp. 115–118.
[14] J. Proakis, Digital Communications.
McGraw-Hill, New York NY,
2001.
[15] S. Ohno and G. B. Giannakis, “Capacity maximizing MMSE-optimal
pilots for wireless OFDM over frequency-selective block Rayleighfading channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 2138–2145,
Sep. 2004.
[16] T. Weiss, J. Hillenbrand, A. Krohn, and F. Jondral, “Mutual interference
in OFDM-based spectrum pooling systems,” in Proc. IEEE Vehicular
Technology Conference (VTC)-Spring, May 2004, pp. 1873–1877.
[17] W. Dinkelbach, “On nonlinear fractional programming,” Management
Science, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 492–498, Mar. 1967.
[18] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization.
Cambridge
University Press, 2004.
[19] D. P. Palomar and J. R. Fonollosa, “Practical algorithms for a family of
waterfilling solutions,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 53, no. 2, pp.
686–695, Feb. 2005.

