1

Throughput Maximization for Decode-and-Forward
Relay Channels with Non-Ideal Circuit Power

arXiv:1606.04661v2 [cs.IT] 19 Jun 2017

Hengjing Liang, Chuan Huang, Member, IEEE, Zhi Chen, Member, IEEE, and Shaoqian Li, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—This paper studies the throughput maximization
problem for a three-node relay channel with non-ideal circuit
power. In particular, the relay operates in a half-duplex manner,
and the decode-and-forward (DF) relaying scheme is adopted.
Considering the extra power consumption by the circuits, the
optimal power allocation to maximize the throughput of the
considered system over an infinite time horizon is investigated.
First, two special scenarios, i.e., the direct link transmission (only
use the direct link to transmit) and the relay assisted transmission
(the source and the relay transmit with equal probability), are
studied, and the corresponding optimal power allocations are
obtained. By transforming two non-convex problems into quasiconcave ones, the closed-form solutions show that the source and
the relay transmit with certain probability, which is determined
by the average power budgets, circuit power consumptions, and
channel gains. Next, based on the above results, the optimal
power allocation for both the cases with and without direct
link is derived, which is shown to be a mixed transmission
scheme between the direct link transmission and the relay assisted
transmission.
Index Terms—Green communication, relay channel, throughput maximization, optimal power allocation, decode-and-forward
(DF).

I. I NTRODUCTION
Green communication has drawn great attention during the
past years. It is reported that more than 1 million gallons of
diesel are consumed by Vodafone, for example, to power their
cellular networks [1], and the consumption will still go up in
the future. The growing cost of fossil fuel energy calls for
both environmental and economical demands and motivations
for the design of green communications [2].
Circuit energy consumption amounts for a significant part of
the total energy consumption [3], [4]. In order to reduce circuit
energy consumption for a fixed amount of data transmission,
increasing throughput and reducing transmission time are
the key targets. Thus, green communication associated with
non-ideal circuit power needs to be designed both energy
and spectrum efficiently. A generic energy efficiency (EE)
maximization problem considering circuit power consumption
was summarized in [5]. In [6], a link adaptation scheme that
balances circuit power consumption and transmission power
This paper was presented in part at IEEE Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference 2017, San Francisco, CA, USA, March 2017.
This work was supported in part by the High-Tech Research and Development (863) Program of China under Grant 2015AA01A707 and the National
Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61501093.
The authors are with the National Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on Communications, University of Electronic Science and Technology
of China, Chengdu 610054, China (e-mail: lianghj@hotmail.com; {huangch,
chenzhi, lsq}@uestc.edu.cn). Corresponding author: C. Huang.

was proposed in frequency-selective channels. EE maximization problems with circuit energy consumption were also
considered in orthogonal frequency division multiple access
(OFDMA) [7] and wireless sensor networks [8]. A throughput
optimal policy considering circuit power was proposed for
point-to-point channels with energy harvesting transmitter [9].
Relaying has been considered as a promising technique to
mitigate fading and extend coverage in wireless networks,
which was introduced in [10] and comprehensively studied in
[11]. Decode-and-forward (DF) relaying was studied in [12]–
[15]. The capacity of a classical three-node relay channel,
consisting of a source, a destination, and a single halfduplex DF relay, was investigated in [16], and the capacity
analysis is extended to a parallel fading relay channel in [17].
Resource allocation problems maximizing spectral efficiency
(SE) for relay networks under different scenarios have been
investigated in [18]–[23]. Green communication problems in
relay networks were discussed in [24]–[31]. In [24], minimum energy required to transmit one information bit was
studied in amplify-and-forward (AF) and DF. In [25] and
[26], energy minimization problems considering channel state
information acquiring energy and signaling overhead were
investigated in single relay selection scheme, respectively.
In [27] and [28], non-ideal circuit power consumption, i.e.,
non-zero circuit power consumption during transmission, was
considered for total energy minimization problems in multihop
relay channels. In [29], sum rate maximization problem with
non-ideal circuit power was studied under holistic power
constraints for the multiple-input multiple-output two-way AF
relay channels. In [30], circuit power consumption was considered for the secure EE maximization of AF relay channels.
In [31], sleep mode was further introduced to save energy in
a one-dimension cellular network, where the relay placement
and the relay sleep probability were jointly optimized. In
[32], throughput maximization problems with non-ideal circuit
power consumption were studied in a three-node relay channel
with direct link.
In this paper, throughput maximization for a three-node
half-duplex Gaussian relay channels considering non-ideal
circuit power is studied over an infinite time horizon. The
transceiver circuitry consumes a constant amount of power in
the active mode and negligible power in the sleep mode. Under
this setup, the optimal power allocations for the throughput
maximization of the relay channel with and without direct link
are both investigated. The main contributions of this paper are
summarized as follows.
• First, the throughput maximization problems for two
special scenarios are investigated. For the direct link

2

transmission (DLT), where only direct link is used for
transmission, the optimal power allocation shows that
the source transmits either at a certain portion of time
slots or constantly according to different average power
budgets, circuit power consumptions, and channel power
gains. Then, the average throughput for DLT is obtained.
For the relay assisted transmission with direct link (RATDL), where the source and the relay transmit with equal
probability, the optimal power allocation has a similar
transmission structure as DLT. By solving a max-min
problem, the average throughput for RAT-DL is obtained.
• Then, with the two special power allocation cases (DLT
and RAT-DL) and the characteristics of their average
throughputs, the optimal power allocation for the throughput maximization of the relay channel with the direct link,
where the source and the relay are not constrained to
transmit with equal probability, is studied. The optimal
solutions obtained by graphic method are shown to be
either a single type of transmission (DLT or RAT-DL) or
a time sharing of both transmissions. Whether to choose
RAT-DL depends on the average power budget and the
maximum EE of DLT and RAT-DL.
• Furthermore, the optimal power allocation for the relay
assisted transmission without direct link (RAT-WDL),
where the source and the relay transmit with equal
probability and the direct link is inactive, is analyzed.
Asymptotic analysis is given for DLT, RAT-DL together
with RAT-WDL at the low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
and high SNR regimes afterwards. At last, simulation
results show that the optimal power allocation scheme
outperforms other conventional schemes.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
introduces the system model and the main assumptions of
this paper. Section III studies two special scenarios. Section
IV investigates the optimal power allocation scheme for the
case with direct link and asymptotic performances. Section V
analyzes RAT-WDL and Section VI evaluates the throughput
performances by simulations. Finally, Section VII concludes
the paper.
Notation: C (x) = log2 (1 + x) denotes the capacity of the
additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel, where x is
the SNR of the channel.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
This paper considers a three-node relay channel as shown
in Fig. 1, which consists of a source, a destination, and a halfduplex relay. The source sends information to the destination
with the help of the relay. Slotted transmission scheme is
adopted, and each time slot is with duration T .
A. Signal Model
In this subsection, channel input and output relationship of
the considered relay channel is introduced. Denote the channel
coefficients of the source-destination, source-relay, and relaydestination links as gSD , gSR , and gRD , respectively, and then
the channel power gains of the three links are given by
2

hSD = |gSD | ,

2

hSR = |gSR | ,

2

hRD = |gRD | ,

(1)

Relay

gSR

gRD
gSD

Source

Destination

Fig. 1. A three-node relay channel.

which are all constants across the time slots.
If the relay is not selected to help the source transmission,
the received signal at the destination in time slot i is given as
yD (i) = gSD x (i) + nD (i) ,

(2)

where x (i) is the source transmitted signal with power PS (i),
and nD (i) is the independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.)
circularly symmetric complex Gaussian (CSCG) noise with
zero mean and unit variance.
When the DF relaying scheme is adopted to help the source
transmission, it operates in a half-duplex manner (one time slot
is then divided into two phases), and the information encoding
and decoding processes are described as follows:
1) In the first phase of time slot i, the source broadcasts x (i)
to both the relay and the destination with power PS (i);
2) Then, the received signal at the relay during the first phase
of time slot i is given as
yR (i) = gSR x (i) + nR (i) ,

(3)

where nR (i) is i.i.d. CSCG noise with zero mean and unit
variance. Next, the relay decodes the source message, reencodes it into a new signal x̃ (i), and forwards x̃ (i) to
the destination with power PR (i).
3) Finally, the destination receives the signals over the whole
time slot, and the received signals yD1 (i) and yD2 (i) in the
two phases are given as
yD1 (i) = gSD x (i) + n1D (i) ,

(4)

yD2

(5)

(i) = gRD x̃ (i) +

n2D

(i) ,

respectively, where n1D (i) and n2D (i) are i.i.d. CSCG
noise with zero mean and unit variance.
For the purpose of exposition, consider the case that the
two phases in one time slot are with equal length. Thus, the
transmission rate for the DF relaying scheme at time slot i is
given as [16]
1
RB (i) = min {C (PS (i) hSR ) ,
2
C (PS (i) hSD ) + C (PR (i) hRD )} .

(6)

It is well known that the DF relaying scheme can work only
when hSR ≥ 2hSD [16]; otherwise, DLT without the help of
relay achieves a larger rate.
B. Power Consumption Model
In this subsection, power consumption model considering
the non-ideal circuit power is discussed. The transceiver cir-

3

cuitry works in two modes: when a signal is transmitting, all
circuits work in the active mode; and when there is no signal
to transmit, they work in the sleep mode.
1) Active mode: the consumed power is mainly comprised
of the transmission power and the circuit power. The
transmission power is determined by the power allocation
PS (i) and PR (i). The circuit power consists of the
following two parts: the transmitting circuit power Pct
comes from the power consumed by the mixer, frequency
synthesizer, active filter, and digital-to-analog converter
[4]; and the receiving circuit power Pcr is composed of the
power consumption of the mixer, frequency synthesizer,
low noise amplifier, intermediate frequency amplifier,
active filter, and analog-to-digital converter [4]. Constant
circuit power model is considered in this paper, i.e., Pct
and Pcr are constants [4]. In the sequel, superscripts “S”,
“R”, and “D” are added to Pct and Pcr to distinguish
the power consumed at the source, relay, and destination,
respectively.
2) Sleep mode: it has been shown that the power consumption Psp in the sleep mode is dominated by the leaking
current of the switching transistors and is usually much
smaller than that in the active mode [4]. Therefore, the
power consumption in the sleep mode is set as Psp = 0.
It is worth pointing out that the results of this paper
can be readily extended to the case of Psp 6= 0 by
deducting Psp from the average power budget and the
power consumption in the active mode.
In general, the circuit power consumed in the active mode
is larger than that in the sleep mode, i.e.,
Pcr > Pct > Psp .

(7)

Thus, smartly operating between the two modes can potentially
save a significant amount of energy.
Based on the power model discussed above, the power
consumptions for both DLT and RAT-DL are computed as
follows.
1) DLT: Denote αA as the total circuit power consumption
in the active mode for DLT, and it is the sum of the
transmitting circuit power at the source and the receiving
circuit power at the destination, i.e.,
αA = PctS + PcrD .
With the defined αA and Psp =
consumption at time slot i for DLT
(
0
A
Ptotal (i) =
PS (i) + αA

(8)
0, the total power
is thus given as

PS (i) = 0
PS (i) > 0.

(9)

Then, the average power constraint for DLT is defined
over N time slots, as N goes to infinity, i.e.,
N
1 X A
Ptotal (i) ≤ PA ,
N →∞ N
i=1

lim

(10)

where PA ≥ 0 is the power budget.
2) RAT-DL: Denote αB as the total circuit power consumption in the active mode for the transmission with the help

of a relay, and it is the sum of the transmitting circuit
power at the source and the relay, the receiving circuit
power at the relay and the destination, i.e.,
 1

1
αB =
PctS + PcrR + PcrD +
PctR + PcrD ,
(11)
2
2

where the 12 penalty is due to the half-duplex constraint
for the considered relaying scheme. With the defined αB
and Psp = 0, the total power consumption at time slot i
for RAT-DL is given as
(
0
PS (i) = 0, PR (i) = 0
B
Ptotal (i) = PS (i)+PR (i)
+ αB PS (i) > 0, PR (i) > 0,
2
(12)
where the 21 penalty is also due to the half-duplex
constraint for the considered relaying scheme. Then, the
average power constraint for RAT-DL is defined over N
time slots, as N goes to infinity, i.e.,
N
1 X B
Ptotal (i) ≤ PB ,
N →∞ N
i=1

lim

(13)

where PB ≥ 0 is the power budget.
III. A C LOSER L OOK

AT

T WO S PECIAL C ASES

In this section, the throughput maximization problems for
two special scenarios are firstly studied, DLT and RAT-DL,
and the corresponding optimal power allocations are obtained
for these throughput maximization problems under the two
scenarios.
A. Direct Link Transmission
In this scenario, the source directly transmits to the destination in one whole time slot and the relay is always inactive.
Thus the transmission rate for DLT at time slot i is given as
R (i) = C (PS (i) hSD ) .

(14)

The goal is to determine {PS (i)} such that the long term
average throughput subject to the average power constraint
defined in (10) is maximized over N time slots as N → ∞,
i.e., solve the following optimization problem
N
1 X
CA (PA ) = max lim
C (PS (i) hSD )
{PS (i)} N →∞ N
i=1

s.t. (10), PS (i) ≥ 0.

(15)

Similar problem has been studied in [9]. As the objective
function of problem (15) is nonnegative and concave, its
solution is of the same structure as that in [9], which is
summarized as the following lemma.
Lemma 1: The optimal power allocation for problem
(15) is given as: Transmit with power value PS∗ =
max (Pee1 , PA − αA ) over p∗ portion of time slots and keep
S hSD )
silent for the rest of the slots, where Pee1 , arg max C(P
PS +αA
PS >0

A
.
and p∗ = P ∗P+α
A
S
Remark 1: From Lemma 1, it is observed that when the average power budget PA is relatively small, i.e., PA ≤ Pee1 +αA ,

4

the optimal transmission strategy is with an “on-off” structure.
It is due to that the scarce average power budget cannot support
the constant transmission with non-zero power consumption
for the circuits. Under this circumstance, transmission with
A
portion of time slots achieves the
power Pee1 over Pee1P+α
A
maximum transmission throughput. When the average power
budget is large enough, i.e., PA > Pee1 + αA , the optimal
transmission strategy follows a constant transmission with the
power value PA − αA .
With the obtained optimal transmission power PS∗ and
probability p∗ in Lemma 1, the relationship between the
average throughput CA (PA ) defined in (15) and the average
power budget PA is summarized in the following proposition.
Proposition 1: The average throughput CA (PA ) defined in
(15) is given as
(
C(Pee1 hSD )
0 ≤ PA ≤ Pee1 + αA
Pee1 +αA · PA
CA (PA ) =
C ((PA − αA ) hSD ) PA > Pee1 + αA ,
(16)
which is continuous, differentiable, and concave over PA ≥ 0.
Proof: Please see Appendix A.
Remark 2: From Proposition 1, it is observed that the
average throughput CA (PA ) is a linear function of the average
power budget PA when PA is small, i.e., PA ≤ Pee1 +αA . Since
S hSD )
Pee1 , arg max C(P
PS +αA , it suggests that the transmission
PS >0

scheme given in Lemma 1 achieves the maximum EE for the
case of DLT [9]. When the average power budget is large
enough, i.e., PA > Pee1 + αA , the source transmits constantly
to achieve the maximum SE.
B. Relay Assisted Transmission with Direct Link
The optimal power allocation for RAT-DL is studied in this
subsection. In this scenario, the relay works following the DF
relaying scheme described above: The source and the relay
transmit in each half of the time slot, i.e., the transmission
probabilities of the source and the relay are the same.
1) Problem Formulation: The goal is to determine {PS (i)}
and {PR (i)} such that the long term average throughput
subject to the average power constraint defined in (13) is
maximized over N time slots as N → ∞, i.e., solve the
following optimization problem
CB (PB ) =

N
1 X
RB (i)
{PS (i)},{PR (i)} N →∞ N
i=1

max
s.t.

lim

(13), PS (i) ≥ 0, PR (i) ≥ 0, (17)

where RB (i) is given in (6).
Since the objective function of problem (17) is nonnegative
and concave [33], it can be checked [9] that the optimal power
allocation of problem (17) is given as: Transmit with power
PS (i) = PS > 0 and PR (i) = PR > 0 over p portion of time
slots and keep silent for the rest of the slots, where PS and PR
are constants. As a result, problem (17) can be reformulated
as
p
CB (PB ) = max
min {C (PS hSR ) ,
{PS ,PR ,p} 2
C (PS hSD ) + C (PR hRD )}
(18)

PR

PR =

PS ( hSR - hSD )
hRD (1 + PS hSD )

2

1

4
3

PS + PR = 2 PB - 2a R

PS

Fig. 2. An illustration of the four disjoint feasible subsets defined in (26)–
(28).

s.t.


1
1
PS + PR + αB · p ≤ PB ,
2
2
0 ≤ p ≤ 1, PS ≥ 0, PR ≥ 0,


(19)
(20)

where (19) is obtained from (13).
It is easy to check that to achieve the optimal value of
problem (18)–(20), constraint (19) must be satisfied with
equality. Thus it follows that the optimal transmission probB
ability p∗ = PS +P2PR +2α
. Hence, problem (18)–(20) can be
B
simplified as
CB (PB ) =
PB min {C (PS hSR ) , C (PS hSD ) + C (PR hRD )}
max
{PS ,PR }
PS + PR + 2αB
s.t. PS + PR ≥ 2PB − 2αB ,
PS ≥ 0, PR ≥ 0,

(21)
(22)
(23)

where (22) is obtained by substituting p∗ into the constraint
0 ≤ p ≤ 1.
Recall that hSR ≥ 2hSD must be satisfied for RAT-DL. It
can be checked that
C (PS hSR ) ≥ C (PS hSD ) + C (PR hRD ) ;

(24)

otherwise, reducing the relay transmit power and increasing
the source transmit power can boost the average throughput.
Therefore, by substituting (24) into (21), problem (21)–(23)
can be rewritten as
C (PS hSD ) + C (PR hRD )
· PB
(25)
CB (PB ) = max
PS + PR + 2αB
{PS ,PR }
s.t. PS + PR ≥ 2PB − 2αB ,
(26)
PS (hSR − hSD )
,
(27)
PR ≤
hRD (1 + PS hSD )
PS ≥ 0, PR ≥ 0,
(28)
where (27) is obtained from (24).
The characterization of the objective function (25) is analyzed in the following lemma.
)+C(PR hRD )
Lemma 2: C(PSPhSSD
is quasiconcave over PS ≥ 0,
+PR +2αB
PR ≥ 0, and there exists a unique global maximum point.
Furthermore, it is first strictly increasing and then strictly
decreasing over PS and PR , respectively [6].
2) Optimal Point: Next, the optimal point of problem (25)–
(28) is derived. By considering the combinations of the cases

5

that the equalities in (26) and (27) are achieved or not, divide
the feasible set defined by constraints (26)–(28) into four
disjoint parts {Ri } , i = 1, 2, 3, 4, as shown in Fig. 2, where
{Ri } are rigorously defined as follows:

R1 , (PS , PR ) |PS + PR > 2PB − 2αB ,

PS (hSR − hSD )
, PS ≥ 0, PR ≥ 0 , (29)
PR <
hRD (1 + PS hSD )

R2 , (PS , PR ) |PS + PR > 2PB − 2αB ,

PS (hSR − hSD )
PR =
, PS ≥ 0, PR ≥ 0 , (30)
hRD (1 + PS hSD )

R3 , (PS , PR ) |PS + PR = 2PB − 2αB ,

PS (hSR − hSD )
, PS ≥ 0, PR ≥ 0 , (31)
PR <
hRD (1 + PS hSD )

R4 , (PS , PR ) |PS + PR = 2PB − 2αB ,

PS (hSR − hSD )
, PS ≥ 0, PR ≥ 0 . (32)
PR =
hRD (1 + PS hSD )
Suppose that (PS∗ , PR∗ ) is the optimal point to problem (25)–
(28), this point belongs to only one 1 of the four sets defined
in (29)–(32). Thus, the following four cases are studied:
1) Case 1: (PS∗ , PR∗ ) ∈ R1 .
In this case, both the constraints (26) and (27) are
inactive, and thus a candidate solution of problem (25)–
(28) is given by maximizing its objective constraint and
ignoring the constraints, i.e.,

PS1 , PR1 = (Pee2 , Pee3 ) ,
C (PS hSD ) + C (PR hRD )
arg
max
.
(33)
{PS ≥0,PR ≥0}
PS + PR + 2αB
After obtain (Pee2 , Pee3 ), the feasibility condition
(Pee2 , Pee3 ) ∈ R1 needs to be doubly checked: If it is
not satisfied, (Pee2 , Pee3 ) cannot be claimed as a solution
candidate for Case 1.
2) Case 2: (PS∗ , PR∗ ) ∈ R2 .
In this case, constraint (26) is inactive and constraint (27)
is active. Since
the equality in (27) is achieved, it follows
∗
(hSR −hSD )
, with which problem (25)–(28) can
PR ∗ = hPRDS (1+P
∗
S hSD )
be simplified as
CB (PB ) =
PB (1 + PS hSD ) hRD C (PS hSR )
max
PS ≥0 hSD hRD P 2 + (U + 2hSD hRD PB ) PS + 2αB hRD
S
(34)
s.t. hSD hRD PS2 + U PS + 2αB hRD − 2hRD PB > 0,
(35)
where U is defined as
U , hSR + hRD − hSD + 2αB hSD hRD − 2hSD hRD PB . (36)
1 The

uniqueness of the solution of problem (25)–(28) can be proved by
contradiction with the property of the strictly quasiconcave function.

To solve problem (34)–(35), first consider the case without constraint (35). Since (25) is quasiconcave over PS
SR −hSD )
and PR , and PR = hPRDS (h
(1+PS hSD ) is nondecreasing over PR ,
(34) is also quasiconcave over PS ≥ 0 [33]. Moreover,
it is easy to verify that: As PS → 0+ , the objective
function (34) approaches 0; as PS increases, (34) is
always positive; and when PS → ∞, (34) approaches 0
again. Therefore, it is concluded that (34) owns a global
maximum point over PS ≥ 0. Define
Pee4 ,
arg max

PS ≥0

(1 + PS hSD ) hRD C (PS hSR )
,
hSD hRD PS2 + (U + 2hSD hRD PB ) PS + 2αB hRD
(37)

which achieves the maximum value of (34) without
considering constraint (35).
Then, doubly check the feasibility condition (35): If PS =
Pee4 satisfies constraint (35), the solution candidate of
problem (25)–(28) in Case 2 is given as



Pee4 (hSR − hSD )
,
(38)
PS2 , PR2 = Pee4 ,
hRD (1 + Pee4 hSD )

(hSR −hSD )
where PR2 = hPRDee4(1+P
is obtained with conee4 hSD )
straint (27) achieving its equality and PS2 = Pee4 ;
2
and
 if PS = Pee4 does not satisfy constraint (35),
Pee4 (hSR −hSD )
Pee4 , hRD (1+Pee4 hSD ) is not the optimal point of problem
(25)–(28). Under the circumstance, the optimal solution
must be on the boundary of the feasible set, i.e., constraint
(35) must be satisfied with equality, and this implies that
the optimal point belongs to Case 4.
3) Case 3: (PS∗ , PR∗ ) ∈ R3 .
In this case, constraint (26) is active and constraint (27)
is inactive. Since equality in (26) is achieved, it follows
PR = 2PB − 2αB − PS , with which problem (25)–(28)
can be simplified as

CB (PB ) = max C −hSD hRD PS 2 + (hSR − U ) PS
PS ≥0

+ (2PB − 2αB ) hRD )
s.t.

hSD hRD PS2

(39)

+ U PS + 2αB hRD

− 2hRD PB > 0.

(40)

As (39) is a composition of a logarithmic function and
a quadratic function, the maximum point of (39) without
considering constraint (40) is achieved by
PS =

hSD − hRD
+ PB − αB .
2hSD hRD

(41)

Then, doubly check the feasibility condition (40): If (41)
satisfies constraint (40), the solution candidate of problem
(25)–(28) in Case 3 is then given as

(42)
PS3 , PR3 = (F, G) ,

where PR3 = G is obtained with constraint (26) achieving
its equality and PS3 = F , and F , G are defined as
F ,

hSD − hRD
+ PB − αB ,
2hSD hRD

(43)

6

G,

hRD − hSD
+ PB − αB ;
2hSD hRD

(44)

and if (41) does not satisfy constraint (40), (F, G) is not
the optimal point of problem (25)–(28). Under the circumstance, the optimal solution must be on the boundary
of the feasible set, i.e., constraint (40) must be satisfied
with equality, and this implies that the optimal point
belongs to Case 4.
4) Case 4: (PS∗ , PR∗ ) ∈ R4 .
In this case, both the constraints (26) and (27) are active.
SR −hSD )
Thus, they lead to PR = hPRDS (h
(1+PS hSD ) and PS + PR =
2PB − 2αB , which imply
hSD hRD PS2 + U PS − 2 (PB − αB ) hRD = 0,

(45)

where U is defined in (36). The solution can be readily
obtained within PS ≥ 0. Denote V as the positive solution
of (45), i.e.,
q
−U + U 2 + 8 (PB − αB ) hSD hRD 2
V ,
.
(46)
2hSD hRD
The solution candidate of problem (25)–(28) in Case 4 is
given as

(47)
PS4 , PR4 = (V, 2PB − 2αB − V ) ,

where PR4 = 2PB − 2αB − V is obtained with constraint
(26) reaching equality and PS4 = V .
Remark 3: After problem (25)–(28) is solved under the
above four cases, the one achieves the largest optimal value
among the four solution candidates is the optimal solution of
problem (25)–(28).
3) Optimal Value: With four optimal solution candidates
obtained, the corresponding necessary and sufficient conditions that allow each case to happen are studied, and the
average throughput for RAT-DL is derived.
1) If the candidate solution (Pee2 , Pee3 ) obtained in (33) is
the solution to problem (25)–(28), according to Lemma
2 and Remark 3, the necessary and sufficient condition
that Case 1 happens is given as S1 ∩ S2 , where
S1 , {PB |Pee2 + Pee3 > 2PB − 2αB } ,
(48)
(
(hSR −hSD )
R+ if Pee3 < hPRDee2(1+P
ee2 hSD )
S2 ,
(49)
∅
otherwise.


(hSR −hSD )
obtained
2) If the candidate solution Pee4 , hPRDee4(1+P
ee4 hSD )
in (38) is the solution to problem (25)–(28), according
to Lemma 2 and Remark 3, the necessary and sufficient
condition that Case 2 happens is given as S2c ∩ S3 , where
S2c is the complementary set of S2 and


Pee4 (hSR − hSD )
S3 , PB Pee4 +
> 2PB − 2αB .
hRD (1 + Pee4 hSD )
(50)
3) If the candidate solution (F, G) obtained in (42) is the
solution to problem (25)–(28), according to Lemma 2
and Remark 3, the necessary and sufficient condition that
Case 3 happens is given as S1c ∩ S2 ∩ S4 , where S1c is the

complementary set of S1 and


F (hSR − hSD )
.
S4 , PB G <
hRD (1 + F hSD )

(51)

4) If the candidate solution (V, 2PB − 2αB − V ) obtained
in (47) is the solution to problem (25)–(28), according to Lemma 2 and Remark 3, the necessary and
sufficient condition that Case 4 happens is given as
(S1c ∩ S2 ∩ S4c ) ∪ (S2c ∩ S3c ), where S3c and S4c are the
complementary sets of S3 and S4 , respectively.
Based on the above discussions, the optimal solutions of
problem (17) are summarized. The average throughput defined
in (17) for RAT-DL is also given in the following proposition.
Proposition 2: The optimal power allocation for problem
(17) is given as: Transmit with power value (PS∗ , PR∗ ) over p∗
portion of time slots and keep silent for the rest of slots, where


(Pee2 , Pee3 )


 PB ∈ S1 ∩ S2


 P , Pee4 (hSR −hSD )
PB ∈ S2c ∩ S3
ee4 hRD (1+Pee4 hSD )
(PS∗ , PR∗ ) =

PB ∈ S1c ∩ S2 ∩ S4
(F, G)



(V, 2PB − 2αB − V ) otherwise,
(52)
2PB
and p∗ = P ∗ +P
∗ +2α . With the optimal power allocation, the
B
S
R
average throughput CB (PB ) defined in (17) is given as

JPB
PB ∈ S1 ∩ S2



M P
PB ∈ S2c ∩ S3
B
CB (PB ) = 1
1

C (F hSD ) + 2 C (GhRD ) PB ∈ S1c ∩ S2 ∩ S4


 12
otherwise,
2 C (V hSR )
(53)
which is continuous, differentiable, and concave over the
hSD )+C(Pee3 hRD )
and M ,
domain, where J , C(Pee2
Pee2 +Pee3 +2αB
(1+Pee4 hSD )hRD C(Pee4 hSR )
hSD hRD P 2 +(U+2hSD hRD PB )Pee4 +2αB hRD .
ee4
Proof: Please see Appendix B.
Remark 4: Based on Proposition 2, it is worth noting that the
transmission scheme given in Proposition 2 is similar to DLT,
which transmits with an on-off structure when the average
power budget PB is small to maximize the EE for the case
of RAT-DL, and transmits constantly when the average power
budget PB is large to maximize the SE. It is also worth noticing
that Pee2 , Pee3 , and Pee4 can be efficiently obtained by a simple
bisection search.
IV. O PTIMAL P OWER A LLOCATION FOR
D IRECT L INK

THE

C ASE

WITH

Based on the two special scenarios studied in the previous
section, the optimal power allocation for the case with direct
link between the source and the destination is investigated.
A. Optimal Power Allocation for the Mixed Transmission
It is worth pointing out that the considered system can only
work in one of three modes for each time slot: DLT, RATDL, or keeping silence. Thus, the optimal power allocation
over an infinite time horizon can only be the combination
of the above three modes. Moreover, by the analysis in the
previous section, it is shown that the mode of keeping silence

7

can be incorporated into any one of the first two modes,
since there is no transmission in portion of the time slots
in these two modes. Therefore, the optimal power allocation
for the throughput maximization of the relay channel with
direct link is a mixed transmission (MT) scheme, i.e., transmit
with the schemes of DLT and RAT-DL discussed in the
previous section. In other words, to solve the optimal power
allocation for MT is equivalent to find the average power
budgets PA and PB for DLT and RAT-DL to maximize the
throughput of the considered relay system, subject to the
average power constraint P0 . Then, the following proposition
is easily obtained.
Proposition 3: The throughput maximization problem for
the relay channel with direct link and non-ideal circuit power
is formulated as
max θCA (PA ) + (1 − θ) CB (PB )

{PA ,PB ,θ}

s.t. θPA + (1 − θ) PB = P0 ,
0 ≤ θ ≤ 1, PA ≥ 0, PB ≥ 0,

C

P
(a)

C

(54)
P

(55)
(56)

(b)

where θ stands for θ portion of time slots for DLT and 1 − θ
stands for 1 − θ portion of time slots for RAT-DL.
Before the optimal solutions of problem (54)–(56) are given,
the relationship between the average throughput for DLT
CA (P ) and RAT-DL CB (P ) is discussed. From (16) and (53),
it can be inferred that CA (P ) and CB (P ) are both increasing
and concave functions, which start from the origin point,
increase linearly, and then turn to logarithmic functions after
some points. Their relationship falls into the following three
cases (the categorization is discussed later in Remark 6 and
Remark 7):

C

b1

(c)

C

1) Case 1: the linear parts of CA (P ) and CB (P ) coincide,
and CA (P ) > CB (P ) after a specific point.
2) Case 2: CA (P ) > CB (P ) for any P > 0, i.e., CA (P ) >
CB (P ) have no intersection point for P > 0.
3) Case 3: CA (P ) and CB (P ) have one or more intersection
points for P > 0, and CA (P ) > CB (P ) when P is large
enough.
In Case 3, suppose there are K > 0 intersection points, and
there exist K straight lines tangent to both CA (P ) and CB (P ).
Denote the x-coordinates of the tangent points on CA (P ) and
CB (P ) as ai and bi , i = 1, 2, ···, K, respectively. The relationship between ai and bi is b1 < a1 < a2 < b2 < ··· < bK < aK
if K is odd, or a1 < b1 < b2 < a2 < · · · < bK < aK if
K is even. Examples are shown in Fig. 3. It is worth noting
that with the average throughput CA (PA ) and CB (PB ) given
in (16) and (53), the x-coordinates ai and bi of the tangent
points can be obtained by the following lemma.
Lemma 3: The x-coordinates a and b of the the tangent
points (a, CA (a)) and (b, CB (b)) on the same tangent line can
be obtained by solving the following two equations
′

′

CA (a) = CB (b) ,
(57)
′
CA (a) − CB (b)
.
(58)
CA (a) =
a−b
If there are infinite solutions, Case 1 satisfies. If there is no
solution, Case 2 satisfies. If there are finite solutions, Case 3

P

a1

a1

b1

b2

a2

P

(d)
Fig. 3. Examples of relationships between CA (P ) and CB (P ): (a) the linear
parts of CA (P ) and CB (P ) coincide; (b) CA (P ) > CB (P ) for any P > 0;
(c) CA (P ) and CB (P ) have only one intersection point for P > 0; (d)
CA (P ) and CB (P ) have two intersection points for P > 0.

satisfies.
With the x-coordinates of the tangent points obtained by
Lemma 3, the optimal power allocation for problem (54)–(56)
is given as the following proposition.
Proposition 4: The optimal power allocation for problem
(54)–(56) is given as

1) For Case 1 and Case 2,
(PA∗ , PB∗ , θ∗ ) = (P0 , 0, 1) ,

(59)

8

2) For Case 3, if K is odd,


P0 ∈ Ω1

(P0 , 0, 1)
∗
∗ ∗
(PA , PB , θ ) = (0,
 P0 , 0)
 P0 ∈ Ω2


 ai , bi , P0 −bi
P0 ∈ Ω3 ,
ai −bi

(60)

if K is even,



P0 ∈ Ω4

(P0 , 0, 1)
∗
∗ ∗
(0,
P
,
0)
(PA , PB , θ ) =  0
 P0 ∈ Ω5


P
−b
 ai , b i , 0 i
P0 ∈ Ω6 ,
ai −bi

Remark 6: The optimal transmission for MT chooses the
one with higher EE to transmit when P0 is small, where the
corresponding EE are the scaling factors of (62) and (63).
2) High SNR Regime: Based on the results in (16) and (53),
as PA → ∞ and PB → ∞, the average throughput for DLT
and RAT-DL at the high SNR regime are asymptotically given
as
CA (PA ) ≈ log2 ((PA − αA ) hSD ) ,
(64)

(61)

CB (PB ) ≈

1
log (V hSR ) .
2 2

(65)

Note that V defined in (46) is a polynomial of PB with
maximum exponent of 1. Besides, it is obviously obtained in
(65) that the multiplexing gain of RAT-DL is 12 , which is due to
the half-duplex penalty. However, the power gain of RAT-DL
does not reach the square of PB and can not compensate the
(K+1)/2
(K+1)/2
[
[
loss
in multiplexing gain, which results in a lower throughput
(b2i−2 , b2i−1 ) ,
(a2i−1 , a2i ) , Ω2 ,
Ω1 ,
performance
at the high SNR regime compared to that of
i=1
i=1
DLT.
It
is
also
in accordance with the observed four cases
(K+1)/2
(K−1)/2
[
[
of
relationships
between
CA (P ) and CB (P ) in Section IV.
(b2i−1 , a2i−1 ) ,
(a2i , b2i ) ∪
Ω3 ,
Remark 7: The optimal transmission for MT always chooses
i=1
i=1
K/2
K/2
DLT when P0 is large due to its higher throughput perfor[
[
mance at the high SNR regime.
(b2i−1 , b2i ) ,
(a2i , a2i+1 ) , Ω5 ,
Ω4 ,
where a0 , b0 , and aK+1 are defined as a0 = b0 , 0 and
aK+1 , +∞ for the purpose of exposition, and Ωi , i =
1, 2, · · ·, 6 are defined as

Ω6 ,

i=1

i=0
K/2

K/2

[

[

(a2i−1 , b2i−1 ) ∪

(b2i , a2i ) .

V. R ELAY A SSISTED T RANSMISSION
L INK

i=1

i=1

Proof: Please see Appendix C.
Remark 5: It is observed that in Case 1, Case 2, and some
situations in Case 3, the optimal power allocation scheme only
chooses DLT or RAT-DL, while in other situations in Case 3,
a time sharing of both transmissions is applied. The transmission types, on-off transmission or constant transmission,
are decided according to DLT average power budget PA∗ and
RAT-DL average power budget PB∗ , respectively.
B. Asymptotic Analysis
In this subsection, throughput performances for DLT and
RAT-DL at the low SNR and high SNR regimes are investigated to further illustrate the optimal transmission scheme.
1) Low SNR Regime: As PA → 0 and PB → 0, the average
throughput for DLT and RAT-DL at the low SNR regime are
given in (16) and (53):
CA (PA ) =

C (Pee1 hSD )
· PA ,
Pee1 + αA

(62)

( C(Pee2 hSD )+C(Pee3 hRD )

· PB
Pee2 +Pee3 +2αB
(1+Pee4 hSD )hRD C(Pee4 hSR )
hSD hRD P 2 +(U+2hSD hRD PB )Pee4 +2αB hRD

S2
· PB S2c .
ee4
(63)
It is interesting to note that both CA (PA )
and CB (PB ) are linear functions of the average
power budgets PA and PB respectively at the low
ee1 hSD )
and
SNR
regime. The scaling factors C(P
Pee1 +αA


CB (PB ) =

C(Pee2 hSD )+C(Pee3 hRD )
Pee2 +Pee3 +2αB

ee4 hSD )hRD C(Pee4 hSR )
or hSD hRD P(1+P
2 +(U+2h h P )P +2α h
SD RD B
ee4
B RD
ee4
are the maximum EE for the case of DLT and RAT-DL,
respectively.

WITHOUT

D IRECT

In this section, the optimal power allocation and throughput
performance of RAT-WDL are studied as a comparison.

A. Optimal Power Allocation for RAT-WDL
In this subsection, the optimal power allocation and average
throughput for RAT-WDL are obtained. For RAT-WDL, the
direct link between the source and the destination is inactive,
i.e., the destination can only receive signals from the relay.
With the signal model described in Section II-A without
considering the direct link, the transmission rate for RAT-WDL
at time slot i is given as
1
min {C (PS (i) hSR ) , C (PR (i) hRD )} .
(66)
2
Denote αC as the total circuit power consumption in the active
mode for RAT-WDL, and it is the same as αB in (11) without
considering 12 PcrD in the first parentheses. The total power
C
B
consumption Ptotal
(i) at time slot i is the same as Ptotal
(i) in
(12) with αB replaced by αC . Then, the average total power
consumption for RAT-WDL is defined over N time slots, as
N goes to infinity, i.e.,
RC (i) =

N
1 X C
Ptotal (i) ≤ PC ,
N →∞ N
i=1

lim

(67)

where PC ≥ 0 is the power budget.
The goal is to determine {PS (i)} and {PR (i)} such that
the long term average throughput subject to the average power

9

PR∗ =

constraint defined in (67) is maximized over N time slots as
N → ∞, i.e., solve the following optimization problem
N
1 X
RC (i)
CC (PC ) =
max
lim
{PS (i)},{PR (i)} N →∞ N
i=1

s.t.

(68)

(67), PS (i) ≥ 0, PR (i) ≥ 0. (69)

Since objective function (68) is nonnegative and concave,
it is easy to check [9] that the optimal power allocation of
problem (68)–(69) is given as: Transmit with power PS (i) =
PS > 0 and PR (i) = PR > 0 over p portion of time slots
and keep silent for the rest of the slots, where PS and PR are
constants. As a result, problem (68)–(69) can be reformulated
as
p
CC (PC ) = max
min {C (PS hSR ) , C (PR hRD )} (70)
{PS ,PR ,p} 2


1
1
s.t.
PS + PR + αC · p ≤ PC , (71)
2
2
0 ≤ p ≤ 1, PS ≥ 0, PR ≥ 0,
(72)
where (71) is obtained from (67).
It is easy to check that to achieve the optimal value of
problem (70)–(72), constraint (71) must be satisfied with
equality. Thus it follows that the optimal transmission probC
. Hence, problem (70)–(72) can be
ability p∗ = PS +P2PR +2α
C
simplified as
min {C (PS hSR ) , C (PR hRD )}
· PC
PS + PR + 2αC
s.t. PS + PR ≥ 2PC − 2αC ,

CC (PC ) = max

{PS ,PR }

PS ≥ 0, PR ≥ 0,

(73)
(74)
(75)

where (74) is obtained by substituting p∗ into the constraint
0 ≤ p ≤ 1.
Since objective function (73) is a concave function divided
by a linear function, it is quasiconcave over PS and PR . The
maximum value is achieved when C (PS hSR ) = C (PR hRD )
due to the characteristics of quasiconcave functions. Thus,
substituting PR = PhS hRDSR into (73) and (74), problem (73)–(75)
can be rewritten as
hRD C (PS hSR )
· PC
(76)
CC (PC ) = max
PS ≥0 (hSR + hRD ) PS + 2hRD αC
s.t. (hSR + hRD ) PS ≥ 2hRD (PC − αC ) . (77)
Define
Pee5 , arg max
PS ≥0

PC hRD C (PS hSR )
,
(hSR + hRD ) PS + 2hRD αC

(78)

which achieves the maximum value of (76) without considering constraint (77). Then, the optimal power allocation of
problem (68)–(69) and the average throughput for RAT-WDL
are given in the following proposition.
Proposition 5: The optimal power allocation for problem
(68)–(69) is given as: Transmit with power value (PS∗ , PR∗ )
over p∗ portion of time slots and keep silent for the rest of
slots, where


2hRD
PS∗ = max Pee5 ,
(PC − αC ) ,
(79)
hSR + hRD

hSR ∗
P ,
hRD S

(80)

2PC
and p∗ = P ∗ +P
. With the optimal power allocation, the
∗
S
R +2αC
average throughput CC (PC ) defined in (68) for RAT-WDL is
given as

C hRD C(Pee5 hSR )
SR +hRD )
 (h P+h
0 ≤ PC ≤ PS (h2h
+ αC
αC
RD )Pee5 +2hRD
RD
SR
2h
h
CC (PC ) = C SR RD (PC −αC )
 hSR +hRD
SR +hRD )
PC > PS (h2h
+ αC .
2
RD
(81)
Proof: Please see Appendix D.

B. Asymptotic Analysis
In this subsection, the asymptotic performance for RATWDL is analyzed.
1) Low SNR Regime: As PC → 0, the average throughput
for RAT-WDL at the low SNR regime is given in (81):
CC (PC ) =

hRD C (Pee5 hSR )
· PC .
(hSR + hRD ) Pee5 + 2hRD αC

(82)

It is interesting to note that CC (PC ) is also a linear function
of the average power budget PC at the low SNR regime. The
hRD C(Pee5 hSR )
scaling factors (hSR +h
is the maximum EE for
RD )Pee5 +2hRD αC
the case of RAT-WDL.
2) High SNR Regime: Based on the results in (81), as PC →
∞, the average throughput for RAT-WDL at the high SNR
regime is asymptotically given as


2hSR hRD
1
(PC − αC ) .
(83)
CC (PC ) ≈ log2
2
hSR + hRD

SR hRD
(PC − αC ) is a linear function of PC . The
Note that h2h
SR +hRD
reciprocals of CC (PC ) and CB (PB ) are infinitesimal of the
same order when the average power budgets approach infinity.
Furthermore, it is obvious that the multiplexing gain of RATWDL is also 21 . Thus, RAT-WDL and RAT-DL are of similar
performances at the high SNR regime.

VI. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, simulations are performed to compare the
performances of the proposed optimal power allocation and
various suboptimal schemes.
• DLT: denotes direct link transmission, discussed in Section III-A, whose power allocation is given in Lemma
1.
• RAT-DL: denotes for relay assisted transmission with
direct link, discussed in Section III-B, whose optimal
power allocation is given in Proposition 2.
• MT: denotes mixed transmission, discussed in Section
IV-A, whose optimal power allocation is given in Proposition 4.
• RAT-WDL: denotes relay assisted transmission without
direct link, discussed in Section V-A, whose optimal
power allocation is given in Proposition 5.
• CDLT: denotes continuous direct link transmission, which
transmits only with the direct link every time slot. The
power allocation for CDLT is given as
(
P0 − αA P0 > αA
∗
PS =
(84)
0
otherwise.

10

6

1.1

4
3
DLT
RAT-DL
MT
RAT-WDL
CDLT
CRAT-DL

4.2

2

4

1
3.8

0

a R=0.16 W

1.05

Throughput (b/s/Hz)

Throughput (b/s/Hz)

5

a R=0.12 W

0

14

10

16

18

20

30

40

a R=0.2 W
a R=0.24 W

1

a R=0.28 W

0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8

1

1.5

P0 (W)

2.5

3

a R=0.16 W

1.05

Throughput (b/s/Hz)

Throughput (b/s/Hz)

0.8

3

a R=0.12 W

1.1

DLT
RAT-DL
MT
RAT-WDL
CDLT
CRAT-DL

1

2.5

(a)

(a)

1.2

2
hSR

50

0.6

a R=0.2 W
a R=0.24 W

1

a R=0.28 W

0.95
0.9

0.4
0.85

0.2
0.8

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

P0 (W)

(b)
Fig. 4. Average power budget vs. throughputs in: (a) high SNR regime; (b)
low SNR regime.

•

CRAT-DL: denotes continuous relay assisted transmission
with direct link, where the source transmits with the help
of the relay every time slot. The power allocation for
CRAT-DL is given as
(
(V, 2PB − 2αB − V ) P0 > αB
∗
∗
(PS , PR ) =
(85)
(0, 0)
otherwise,

1

1.5

2
hRD

(b)
Fig. 5. Channel gains vs. mixed transmission throughputs: (a) hSR vs. mixed
transmission throughput; (b) hRD vs. mixed transmission throughput.

DLT, RAT-DL, and RAT-WDL. At the low SNR regime, when
P0 = 0.5 W, throughput performance of RAT-DL/MT is about
0.3 b/s/Hz larger than that of DLT. Moreover, the performance
gap enlarges as P0 increases. RAT-DL, which coincides with
MT, outperforms other transmission schemes. It suggests that
RAT-DL is more energy efficient than DLT and RAT-WDL at
the low SNR regime.

where V is given in (46).
B. Channel Gains vs. Mixed Transmission Throughputs
A. Average Power Budgets vs. Throughputs
Fig. 4 compares the performances of several transmission
schemes at both high and low SNR regimes. The circuit power
consumptions are set as αA = 0.2 W, αB = 0.24 W, αC = 0.18
W. The channel gains are set as hSD = 1, hSR = 10, hRD = 3.
It is easy to see that MT always outperforms other transmission
schemes. In Fig. 4(a), when the average power budget P0 is
small, throughput curves of MT and RAT-DL coincide; when
P0 gets larger, throughput curves of MT, DLT and CDLT
coincide. At the high SNR regime, DLT and CDLT outperform
RAT-DL and CRAT-DL, which is due to the multiplexing gain.
Besides, the performance slope of RAT-DL and RAT-WDL are
similar, which proves our analysis in Section V-B. Fig. 4(b)
depicts the linear parts of CA (PA ), CB (PB ), and CC (PC ) in

In this subsection, MT throughputs are compared with
different channel gains. The channel gains are set as hSD = 1,
hRD = 2 for Fig. 5(a), and hSR = 2 for Fig. 5(b). The
average power budget is set as P0 = 1 W. The circuit
power consumptions are set as αA = 0.2 W, and αB =
0.12, 0.16, 0.2, 0.24, 0.28 W, respectively.
Fig. 5 shows that the increase in hSR and hRD leads the
optimal transmission type changing from the DLT to firstly
MT, and then RAT-DL. It is due to that the throughput of RATDL improves as hSR and hRD increases. The MT range is too
short to be seen in the figures, which is located near the turning
point. Besides, it can be concluded from the figures that as αB
increases, larger channel gains hSR or hRD are required for the
optimal transmission scheme to choose RAT-DL. Furthermore,

11

0.3

3

0.29

2.5

0.27
hRD

Throughput (b/s/Hz)

RAT-DL
0.28

0.26

2

h =1

0.25

SR

h =1.25
SR

0.24
0.23

hSR=1.5

MT

DLT

1.5

hSR=1.75
h =2
SR

0.22
0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

1

0.35

a D (W)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

h

SR

(a)

(a)

0.36

3
hSR=1
hSR=1.25

0.34

2.5

SR

RAT-DL

MT

h =1.75
SR

0.32

hSR=2

hRD

Throughput (b/s/Hz)

h =1.5

0.3

2

0.28

DLT

1.5
0.26
0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

a R (W)

1

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

h

SR

(b)

(b)

Fig. 6. Circuit power consumptions vs. mixed transmission throughputs:
(a) αA vs. mixed transmission throughput; (b) αB vs. mixed transmission
throughput.

Fig. 7. Optimal transmission regions with different P0 : (a) P0 = 1 W; (b)
P0 = 2 W.

the unit throughput improvement by hSR is larger than hRD
when the optimal transmission type is RAT-DL.

C. Circuit Power Consumptions vs. Mixed Transmission
Throughputs
In this subsection, MT throughputs are compared with
different circuit power consumptions. The channel gains are
set as hSD = 1, hRD = 2, and hSR = 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2,
respectively. The average power budget is set as P0 = 0.3 W.
Fig. 6(a) shows that the increase in αA leads the optimal
transmission type changing from the DLT to firstly the MT,
and then RAT-DL. It is due to that the throughput of DLT
deteriorates as αA increases. Fig. 6(b) shows that the increase
in αB leads the optimal transmission type changing from RATDL to firstly MT, and then DLT. It is due to that the throughput
of RAT-DL deteriorates as αB increases. The MT range is too
short to be seen in the figures, which is located near the turning
point. Besides, it can be concluded from the figures that as hSR
increases, the optimal transmission type will change to RATDL with fewer circuit power consumption αA for Fig. 6(a),
and the optimal transmission type will change to DLT with
larger circuit power consumption αB for Fig. 6(b).

D. Optimal Transmission Regions
In this subsection, the optimal transmission regions are
compared with different average power budgets P0 = 1 W
and P0 = 2 W. The circuit power consumptions are set as
αA = 0.2 W, αB = 0.24 W. The channel gain for the direct
link is set as hSD = 1.
Fig. 7 shows that as P0 increases, the regions of DLT and
MT expand, while the region of RAT-DL shrinks. It is due to
the multiplexing gain loss of RAT-DL at the high SNR regime,
which proves our analysis in Section IV-B.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, the throughput optimal power allocation for
a basic three-node relay channel with non-ideal circuit power
was studied. Two special scenarios for DLT and RAT-DL were
firstly investigated, and their corresponding average throughputs and characteristics were derived. Then, with the results
from these two special cases, the optimal power allocation for
the case with direct link was studied, which turns out to be
either a single type of transmission (DLT or RAT-DL) or a time
sharing of both transmissions according to specific average
power budget. Asymptotic analysis was also given to support
the results. At last, the optimal power allocation for RAT-WDL

12

was analyzed. Numerical results showed that the proposed optimal power allocation outperforms other suboptimal schemes.
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF P ROPOSITION 1
First, the average throughput CA (PA ) is obtained by taking
A
PS∗ = max (Pee1 , PA − αA ) and p∗ = P ∗P+α
into the objecA
S
tive function of problem (15). Next, it is easy to prove that
CA (PA ) in (16) is continuous over PA ≥ 0 by definition in
terms of limits of functions.
Then, examine the differentiability of CA (PA ). Since
CA (PA ) in (16) is obviously differentiable except for the
breakpoint PA = Pee1 + αA , only the differentiability at the
breakpoint PA = Pee1 + αA needs to be discussed. It is easy
to check that
CA (Pee1 + αA + a) − CA (Pee1 + αA )
lim
−
a
a→0
′
C (Pee1 hSD )
,
(86)
= lim− CA (Pee1 + αA + a) =
Pee1 + αA
a→0
CA (Pee1 + αA + a) − CA (Pee1 + αA )
lim
a
a→0+
′
hSD
.
(87)
= lim CA (Pee1 + αA + a) =
ln 2 (1 + Pee1 hSD )
a→0+
hSD
ee1 hSD )
According to (86) and (87), C(P
Pee1 +αA = ln 2(1+Pee1 hSD ) has to
hold for differentiability at the breakpoint PA = Pee1 + αA .
S hSD )
Since Pee1 , max C(P
PS +αA , it is easy to obtain
PS >0



d C (PS hSD )
dPS PS + αA

= 0,

(88)

PS =Pee1

which is equivalent to
hSD
C (Pee1 hSD )
.
=
ln 2 (1 + Pee1 hSD )
Pee1 + αA

(89)

Next, the continuity and differentiability of CB (PB ) is examined. Note that CB (PB ) in (53) is continuous and differentiable
except for the breakpoints

Pee4 (hSR − hSD )
Pee4
Pee2 + Pee3
+ αB ,
+
+ αB ,
PB =
2
hRD (1 + Pee4 hSD )
2

hSD V 2
UV
(91)
+ αB ,
+
2
hRD
where U and V are given in (36) and (46), respectively.
First, examine the continuity at the breakpoint PB =
+ αB . It is easy to check that

Pee2 +Pee3
2

lim

−
P +P
PB → ee2 2 ee3 +αB

lim

+
P +P
PB → ee2 2 ee3 +αB

CB (PB )




Pee2 + Pee3
hSD
1
hSD −
+
= C
2
2h
2
 RD 

1
Pee2 + Pee3
hRD
+ C
+
hRD −
2
2hSD
2


1
2

1
.
2

(93)
(94)

To check the continuity of CB (PB ) at the breakpoints PB =
+ αB , the right-hand sides of (92) and (93) must be
)+C(PR hRD )
for purpose of
equal. Denote f (PS , PR ) = C(PSPhSSD
+PR +2αB
exposition. Since (Pee2 , Pee3 ) =
max
f (PS , PR ), it is
Pee2 +Pee3
2

{PS >0,PR >0}

′

′

easy to obtain that fPS (Pee2 , Pee3 ) = 0 and fPR (Pee2 , Pee3 ) =
0, which are equivalent to
hSD (Pee2 + Pee3 + 2αB )
= C (Pee2 hSD ) + C (Pee3 hRD ) , (95)
ln 2 (1 + Pee2 hSD )
hRD (Pee2 + Pee3 + 2αB )
= C (Pee2 hSD ) + C (Pee3 hRD ) . (96)
ln 2 (1 + Pee3 hRD )
Substituting (95) into (96) leads to
hRD
hSD
=
,
1 + Pee3 hRD
1 + Pee2 hSD

(97)

which is equivalent to
(90)

and it follows that CA (PA ) is differentiable at the breakpoint
PA = Pee1 +αA . Thus, CA (PA ) is differentiable when PA ≥ 0.
At last, examine the concavity of CA (PA ). Since CA (PA )
is continuous and differentiable over PA ≥ 0, and first-order
condition is satisfied by the definition of CA (PA ) in (16), it is
a concave function [33].
Based on the above analysis, Proposition 1 is proved.

P ROOF

C (Pee2 hSD ) + C (Pee3 hRD )
,
2
(92)

Substituting (89) into (87) leads to
CA (Pee1 + αA + a) − CA (Pee1 + αA )
lim−
a
a→0
CA (Pee1 + αA + a) − CA (Pee1 + αA )
,
= lim
a
a→0+

CB (PB ) =

A PPENDIX B
OF P ROPOSITION 2

First, the average throughput CB (PB ) is obtained. By taking
the optimal solutions given in (52) into (25), the average
throughput CB (PB ) can be obtained as shown in Proposition
2.

hRD + Pee2 hSD hRD = hSD + Pee3 hSD hRD .

(98)

It is easy to obtain the following two equations from (98):


1
Pee2 + Pee3
hSD
hSD − = Pee2 hSD ,
+
(99)
2hRD
2
2


1
Pee2 + Pee3
hRD
hRD − = Pee3 hRD .
+
(100)
2hSD
2
2
Substituting (99)(100) into (93) leads to
lim

−
P +P
PB → ee2 2 ee3 +αB
=CB



CB (PB ) =


Pee2 + Pee3
+ αB ,
2

lim
+

P +P
PB → ee2 2 ee3 +αB

CB (PB )
(101)

and it follows that CB (PB ) is continuous at the breakpoint
ee3
PB = Pee2 +P
+ αB .
2
Next examine the differentiability of CB (PB ) at the break-

13

point PB =

Pee2 +Pee3
2

+ αB . It is easy to check that


ee3
+ αB + a − CB Pee2 +P
+ αB
CB
2
lim
a 
a→0−

′
Pee2 + Pee3
= lim CR
+ αB + a
2
a→0−
C (Pee2 hSD ) + C (Pee3 hRD )
,
(102)
=
Pee2 + Pee3 + 2αB
Pee2 +Pee3
2

Pee2 +Pee3
2

CB



+ αB + a − CB
a 

′
Pee2 + Pee3
+ αB + a
= lim CR
2
a→0+
lim

a→0+

=

1
2 ln 2
+

1
2

+

hSD
2hRD

hSD

ee3
+ Pee2 +P
hSD
2
!

hRD
1
2

+

hRD
2hSD

+

Pee2 +Pee3
2

Pee2 +Pee3
2



hRD

+ αB



(103)

.

Substituting (95)(96)(99)(100) into (103) leads to


ee3
ee3
CB Pee2 +P
+ αB + a − CB Pee2 +P
+ αB
2
2
lim
a
a→0−


Pee2 +Pee3
ee3
+ αB + a − CB Pee2 +P
+ αB
CB
2
2
,
= lim
a
a→0+
(104)
and it follows that CB (PB ) is differentiable at the breakpoint
ee3
PB = Pee2 +P
+ αB .
2
The continuity and differentiability at the other two breakpoints can be examined in similar ways, the proof is omitted
due to space limitations. Based on the above analysis, CB (PB )
is continuous and differentiable when PB ≥ 0. Besides, since
first-order condition is satisfied by the definition of CB (PB ),
it is a concave function [33].
Thus, Proposition 2 is proved.

P ROOF

A PPENDIX C
OF P ROPOSITION 4

It is worth to note that the objective function (54) is
θCA (PA )+(1 − θ) CB (PB ), which stands for any line segments
between any two points on line CA (P ) and CB (P ). Constraint
(55) gives the relationship between P0 and {PA , PB , θ}.
Thus, the optimization problem can be interpreted as finding
the maximum value of any line segments between any two
points on line CA (P ) and CB (P ) with specific x-coordinate
P0 .
In Case 1 and Case 2, CA (P ) ≥ CB (P ) over P > 0, i.e.,
the line segments are upper bounded by CA (P ). Thus, it is
obvious in these cases that (PA∗ , PB∗ ) = (P0 , 0). Besides, θ∗
can be obtained by substituting (PA∗ , PB∗ ) into (55).
In Case 3, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the domain is divided into
several intervals by the x-coordinates of the tangent points.
When P0 falls into the interval where the line segments are
upper bounded by CA (P ), the power should all be allocated to
DLT; When P0 falls into the interval where the line segments
are upper bounded by CB (P ), the power should all be allocated
to RAT; When P0 falls into the interval where the line

segments are upper bounded by the tangent line of CA (P ) and
CB (P ), the power value allocated for DLT and RAT are the
corresponding x-coordinates of the tangent points on CA (P )
and CB (P ), respectively.
With the above results, the optimal power allocation can be
easily obtained according to P0 as shown in Proposition 4,
and thus, Proposition 4 is proved.
A PPENDIX D
P ROOF OF P ROPOSITION 5
It is easy to check that objective function (76) is quasiconcave over PS , since it is a concave function divided
by a linear function [33]. It is increasing if 0 ≤ PC ≤
hSR +hRD
RD
> hSR2h+h
PS +αC . Thus,
2hRD PS +α
RD
 C and decreasing if PC 

RD
(PC − αC ) achieves the maximum
PS∗ = max Pee5 , hSR2h+h
RD

SR
PS∗ is obtained from
value of problem (76)–(77). PR∗ = hhRD
∗
PS hSR = PR hRD . Substituting PS and PR∗ into objective
function (76), the average throughput CC (PC ) for RAT-WDL
is obtained as (81). Thus, Proposition 5 is proved.

R EFERENCES
[1] C. Han, T. Harrold, S. Armour, I. Krikidis, S. Videv, P. M. Grant,
H. Haas, J. S. Thompson, I. Ku, C. Wang, T. A. Le, M. R. Nakhai,
J. Zhang, and L. Hanzo, “Green radio: radio techniques to enable energyefficient wireless networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Mag., vol. 49,
no. 6, pp. 46–54, Jun. 2011.
[2] G. Y. Li, Z. Xu, C. Xiong, C. Yang, S. Zhang, Y. Chen, and S. Xu,
“Energy-efficient wireless communications: tutorial, survey, and open
issues,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Mag., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 28–35, Dec.
2011.
[3] S. Cui, A. J. Goldsmith, and A. Bahai, “Energy-efficiency of MIMO and
cooperative MIMO techniques in sensor networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1089–1098, Aug. 2004.
[4] ——, “Energy-constrained modulation optimization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 2349–2360, Sep. 2005.
[5] C. Isheden, Z. Chong, E. Jorswieck, and G. Fettweis, “Framework
for link-level energy efficiency optimization with informed transmitter,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 2946–2957, Aug.
2012.
[6] G. Miao, N. Himayat, and G. Y. Li, “Energy-efficient link adaptation
in frequency-selective channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 58, no. 2,
pp. 545–554, Feb. 2010.
[7] C. Xiong, G. Y. Li, S. Zhang, Y. Chen, and S. Xu, “Energy- and
spectral-efficiency tradeoff in downlink OFDMA networks,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 3874–3886, Sep. 2011.
[8] S. K. Jayaweera, “Virtual MIMO-based cooperative communication for
energy-constrained wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 984–989, May 2006.
[9] J. Xu and R. Zhang, “Throughput optimal policies for energy harvesting
wireless transmitters with non-ideal circuit power,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 322–332, Feb. 2014.
[10] E. C. van der Meulen, “Three-terminal communication channels,” Adv.
Appl. Probab., vol. 3, pp. 120–154, 1971.
[11] T. M. Cover and A. A. E. Gamal, “Capacity theorems for the relay
channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. IT-25, no. 5, pp. 572–584, Sep.
1979.
[12] J. N. Laneman, D. N. C. Tse, and G. W. Wornell, “Cooperative diversity
in wireless networks: Efficient protocols and outage behavior,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3062–3080, Dec. 2004.
[13] R. Pabst, B. H. Walke, D. C. Schultz, P. Herhold, H. Yanikomeroglu,
S. Mukherjeee, H. Viswanathan, M. Lott, W. Zirwas, M. Dohler, H. Aghvami, D. D. Falconer, and G. P. Fettweis, “Relay-based deployment
concepts for wireless and mobile broadband radio,” IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 88–89, Sep. 2004.
[14] A. Nosratinia and A. Hedayat, “Cooperative communication in wireless
networks,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 74–80, Oct. 2004.
[15] G. Kramer, M. Gastpar, and P. Gupta, “Cooperative strategies and
capacity theorems for relay networks,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51,
no. 9, pp. 3037–3063, Sep. 2005.

14

[16] A. Høst-Madsen and J. Zhang, “Capacity bounds and power allocation
for wireless relay channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 6, pp.
2020–2040, Jun. 2005.
[17] Y. Liang, V. V. Veeravalli, and H. V. Poor, “Resource allocation for
wireless fading relay channels: Max-min solution,” IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 3432–3453, Oct. 2007.
[18] T. C. Y. Ng and W. Yu, “Joint optimization of relay strategies and
resource allocations in cooperative cellular networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 328–339, Feb. 2007.
[19] B. Rankov and A. Wittneben, “Spectral efficient protocols for halfduplex fading relay channels,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 25,
no. 2, pp. 379–389, Feb. 2007.
[20] J. Tang and X. Zhang, “Cross-layer resource allocation over wireless
relay networks for quality of service provisioning,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 645–656, May 2007.
[21] O. Simeone, Y. Bar-Ness, and U. Spagnolini, “Stable throughput of
cognitive radios with and without relaying capability,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 2351–2360, Dec. 2007.
[22] K. Jitvanichphaibool, R. Zhang, and Y. Liang, “Optimal resource allocation for two-way relay-assisted OFDMA,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 3311–3321, Sep. 2009.
[23] C. Huang, R. Zhang, and S. Cui, “Throughput maximization for the
gaussian relay channel with energy harvesting constraints,” IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1469–1479, Aug. 2013.
[24] Y. Yao, X. Cai, and G. B. Giannakis, “On energy efficiency and optimum
resource allocation of relay transmissions in the low-power regime,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 2917–2927, Nov.
2005.
[25] R. Madan, N. B. Mehta, A. F. Molisch, and J. Zhang, “Energy-efficient
cooperative relaying over fading channels with simple relay selection,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 3013–3025, Aug.
2008.
[26] Z. Zhou, S. Zhou, J. Cui, and S. Cui, “Energy-efficient cooperative
communication based on power control and selective single-relay in
wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 8,
pp. 3066–3078, Aug. 2008.
[27] G. Brante, M. T. Kakitani, and R. D. Souza, “Energy efficiency analysis of some cooperative and non-cooperative transmission schemes in
wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 59, no. 10, pp.
2671–2677, Jul. 2011.
[28] C. Bae and W. E. Stark, “End-to-end energy-bandwidth tradeoff in
multihop wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 9,
pp. 4051–4066, Sep. 2009.
[29] X. Zhou, B. Bai, and W. Chen, “Greedy relay antenna selection for
sum rate maximization in amplify-and-forward MIMO two-way relay
channels under a holistic power model,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 19,
no. 9, pp. 1648–1651, Sep. 2015.
[30] D. Wang, B. Bai, W. Chen, and Z. Han, “Achieving high energy
efficiency and physical-layer security in AF relaying,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 740–752, Jan. 2016.
[31] S. Zhou, A. J. Goldsmith, and Z. Niu, “On optimal relay placement and
sleep control to improve energy efficiency in cellular networks,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), Kyoto, Japan, Jun. 5–9, 2011, pp. 1–6.
[32] H. Liang, C. Huang, Z. Chen, and S. Li, “Throughput maximization
for decode-and-forward relay channels with non-ideal circuit power,”
in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. and Networking Conf. (WCNC), San
Francisco, USA, Mar. 19–22, 2017, pp. 1–6.
[33] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2004.

