Simultaneous Lightwave Information and Power
Transfer (SLIPT) for Indoor IoT Applications
Panagiotis D. Diamantoulakis∗ and George K. Karagiannidis∗

arXiv:1706.09624v1 [cs.IT] 29 Jun 2017

∗ Department

of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GR-54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
e-mails: {padiaman, geokarag}@auth.gr

Abstract—We present the concept of Simultaneous Lightwave
Information and Power Transfer (SLIPT) for indoor Internet-ofThings (IoT) applications. Specifically, we propose novel and fundamental SLIPT strategies, which can be implemented through
Visible Light or Infrared communication systems, equipped
with a simple solar panel-based receiver. These strategies are
performed at the transmitter or at the receiver, or at both sides,
named Adjusting transmission, Adjusting reception and Coordinated adjustment of transmission and reception, correspondingly.
Furthermore, we deal with the fundamental trade-off between
harvested energy and quality-of-service (QoS), by maximizing the
harvested energy, while achieving the required user’s QoS. To this
end, two optimization problems are formulated and optimally
solved. Computer simulations validate the optimum solutions
and reveal that the proposed strategies considerably increase the
harvested energy, compared to SLIPT with fixed policies.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The era of Internet-of-Things (IoT) opens up the opportunity
for a number of promising applications in smart buildings,
health monitoring, and predictive maintenance. In the context of wireless access to IoT devices, radio frequency (RF)
technology is the main enabler. Furthermore, the exponential
growth in the data traffic puts tremendous pressure on the
existing global telecommunication networks and the expectations from the fifth generation (5G) of wireless networks.
However, it is remarkable that most of the data consumption/generation, which are related to IoT applications, occurs
in indoor environments [1]. Motivated by this, optical wireless
communication (OWC), such as visible light communications
(VLC) or infrared (IR), have been recognized as promising
alternative/complimentary technologies to RF, in order to give
access to IoT devices in indoor applications [1]. The data rates
reported for indoor VLC/IR networking are much higher than
those achieved by WiFi, especially when client and server
are closely located. Apart from the very high data rates [2],
the advantages of OWC technologies include: i) increase of
available bandwidth, ii) easy bandwidth reuse, iii) increase of
energy efficiency and considerable energy savings, iv) no RF
contamination, and v) free from RF interference. Moreover,
nowadays, light emitting diodes (LEDs) and photodetectors
(PDs) tend to be considerably cheaper than their RF counterparts, while the cost-efficiency is further improved due to the
potential to use the existing lighting infrastructure [3]–[5].
Due to the strong dependence of the IoT on wireless
access, their applications are constrained by the finite battery capacity of the involved devices [6]. Therefore, energy

harvesting (EH), which refers to harnessing energy from the
environment or other sources and converting to electrical
energy, is a critical part of the operation and maintain of the
IoT devices. Energy harvesting is regarded as a disruptive
technological paradigm to prolong the lifetime of energyconstrained wireless networks, which apart from offering a
promising solution for energy-sustainability of wireless nodes,
it also reduces the operating expenses (OPEX) [6]. However,
the main disadvantage of traditional EH methods is that they
rely on natural resources, such as solar and wind, which are
uncontrollable. For this reason, harvesting energy from radio
frequency signals, which also transfer information, seems to be
an interesting alternative. In order to enable simultaneous wireless information and power transfer and increase efficiency
of the utilized resources, two strategies have been proposed
named power-splitting, which is based on the division of the
signals power into two streams, and time-splitting, according
to which, during a portion of time, the received signal is used
solely for energy harvesting, instead of decoding [7].
Although RF based wireless power transfer is a well investigated topic in the last five years, optical wireless power
transfer (OWPT) is a new topic and only a few works have
been reported so far in the open literature. In the pioneering
work of Fakidis et. al. [8], the visible and infra-red parts
of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum was used for OWPT,
through laser or LEDs at the transmitter and solar cells at
the receiver side. Also, in [9] and [10] energy harvesting
was performed by using the existing lighting fixtures for
indoor IoT applications. Regarding the simultaneous optical
wireless information and power transfer, in [11] the sum rate
maximization problem has been optimized in a downlink VLC
system with simultaneous wireless information and power
transfer. However, in this paper the utilized energy harvesting
model does not correspond to that of the solar panel, where
only the direct current DC component of the modulated light
can be used for energy harvesting, in contrast to the alternating
current AC component, which carries the information. The
separation of the DC and AC components was efficiently
achieved by the self-powered solar panel receiver proposed
in [12], [13], where it was proved that the use of the solar
panel for communication purposes does not limit its energy
harvesting capabilities. Thus, the utilization of the powersplitting in the useful recent work [14], where the received
photocurrent is splitted in two parts with each of them to
include both a DC and a AC part, reduces the EH efficiency.

Moreover, in [14] an oversimplified energy harvesting model
was used, assuming that the harvested energy is linearly proportional to the received optical power, while an optimization
of the splitting technique was not presented. Furthermore, in
the significant research works [15], [16], a dual-hop hybrid
VLC/RF communication system is considered, in order to
extend the coverage. In these papers, besides detecting the
information over the VLC link, the relay is also able to harvest
energy from the first-hop VLC link, by extracting the DC
component of the received optical signal. This energy can
be used to re-transmit the data to a mobile terminal over the
second-hop RF link. Also, in [15] the proposed hybrid system
was optimized, in terms of data rate maximization, while in
[16] the packet loss probability was evaluated.
In this paper, we present for first time a framework for
simultaneous optical wireless information and power transfer,
called from now on as Simultaneous Lightwave Information
and Power Transfer (SLIPT), which can be efficiently used
for indoor IoT applications through VLC or IR systems. More
specifically, we propose novel and fundamental strategies in
order to increase the feasibility and efficiency of SLIPT,
when a solar panel-based receiver is used. These strategies
are performed at the transmitter or at the receiver, or at
both sides, named Adjusting transmission, Adjusting reception,
and Coordinated adjustment of transmission and reception.
Regarding adjusting transmission two policies are proposed:
i) Time-splitting (TS), according to which the time frame is
separated in two distinct phases, where in each of them the
main focus is either on communication or energy transfer
and, ii) Time-splitting with DC bias optimization, which is
a generalization of TS. In contrast to RF-based wireless
powered networks, where the TS strategy and adjustment of
the related parameters takes place at the receiver’s side, TS in
SLIPT refers to the adaptation of specific parameters of the
transmitted signal. Regarding adjusting reception, the Fieldof-view (FoV) adjustment policy is proposed, while according
to the coordinated adjustment of transmission and reception
strategy, we propose the simultaneous optimization of the
former policies at both transmitter and receiver, in order to
maximize the harvested energy, while achieving the required
Quality-of-Service (QoS) (e.g. data rate and signal-to-noise
plus interference ratio (SINR)). Finally, the resulting two
optimization problems are formulated and optimally solved.
II. S YSTEM

AND

C HANNEL MODEL

We consider the downlink transmission of an OWC system,
consisting of one LED and a single user. We also assume
that the user is equipped with the functionality of energy
harvesting. The VLC/IR transmitter/receiver design is shown
in Fig. 1, while the VLC/IR downlink communication is
depicted in Fig. 2.
A. Optical Wireless Transmission
Let m(t) denote the modulated electrical signal that corresponds to the bit stream from the information source. A DC
bias B is added to m(t) to ensure that the resulting signal

Fig. 1. SLIPT transceiver design

Fig. 2. VLC/IR downlink communication

is non-negative, before being used to modulate the optical
intensity of the LED and regulate the LED in the proper
operation mode. The transmitted optical signal from the LED
is [15]
Pt (t) = PLED [B + m(t)],
(1)
where PLED is the LED power. The electrical signal varies
around the DC bias B ∈ [IL , IH ] with peak amplitude A,
where IL is the minimum and IH is the maximum input bias
currents, correspondigly. In order to avoid clipping distortion
by the nonlinearity of the LED, by restraining the input
electrical signal to the LED within the linear region of the
LED operation, the following limitation is induced
A ≤ min(B − IL , IH − B),

(2)

where min(z, y) denotes the minimum between z and y.
B. Channel Model
The channel power gain is given by [17]–[19]
h=

Lr
R0 (ϕ)Ts (ψ)g(ψ) cos(ψ),
d2

(3)

where Lr is the physical area of the photo-detector, d is the
transmission distance from the LED to the illuminated surface
of the photo-detector, Ts (ψ) is the gain of the optical filter
and g(ψ) represents the gain of the optical concentrator, given
by [17], [19]
(
ρ2
, 0 ≤ ψ ≤ Ψfov ,
2 (Ψ
sin
fov )
(4)
g(ψ) =
0, ψ > Ψfov .

is due to the dedicated LED, while I2 is due to different light
sources, e.g. neighboring LEDs. Also, Voc is
IDC
Voc = Vt ln(1 +
),
(12)
I0
where Vt is the thermal voltage and I0 is the dark saturation
current of the PD. Moreover, f is the fill factor, defined as the
ratio of the maximum power from the solar cell to the product
of the open-circuit voltage Voc and Isc ,

with ρ and Ψfov being the refractive index and FOV, respectively. Also in (3), R0 (ϕ) is the Lambertian radiant intensity
of the LED, given by

III. SLIPT S TRATEGIES
In this section we propose fundamental SLIPT strategies
for use in VLC/IR communication systems. These strategies
are performed either at the transmitter or at the receiver, or at
both sides: Adjusting transmission, Adjusting reception, and
Coordinated adjustment of transmission and reception.

ξ+1
cosξ ϕ,
(5)
2π
where ϕ is the irradiance angle, ψ is the incidence angle, and
R0 (ϕ) =

ξ=−

1
,
log2 cos(Φ1/2 )

(6)

with Φ1/2 being the semi-angle at half luminance.
C. Received Electrical SINR
The electrical current ir (t) at the output of the PD can be
written as
ir = η(hPt (t) + Po ) + n(t) = IDC (t) + i(t) + n(t),

(7)

where η is the photo-detector responsivity in A/W, Po is
the received optical signal from other sources, e.g. other
neighboring LEDs, IDC is the DC component, i(t) is the
AC component, and n(t) is the additive white Gaussian noise
(AWGN), which is created from background shot noise and
thermal noise.
The AC component i(t) is composed of two terms, i.e.
i(t) = i1 (t) + i2 (t), where
i1 (t) = ηhPLED m(t)

(8)

is due to the dedicated LED, and i2 (t) is due to other
interfering sources. Thus, the received SINR can be written
as
(ηhPLED A)2
,
(9)
γ=
PI + σ 2
where σ 2 is the noise power and PI is the electrical power of
the received interference.
D. Energy Harvesting Model
As it has already been mentioned the photocurrent consistes
of both the DC and AC signals. In order to perform energy
harvesting, the DC component is blocked by a capacitor
and passes through the energy harvesting branch [12]. The
harvested energy is given by [20]
E = f IDC Voc ,

(10)

with f being the fill factor [20] and IDC = I1 + I2 being the
DC component of the output current, where
I1 = ηhn PLED B

(11)

A. Adjusting Transmission
Next, we introduced two policies for the adjusting transmission strategy, named Time-splitting and Time-splitting with
DC Bias Optimization.
1) Time-splitting: According to the Time-splitting policy
the received optical signal is used for a portion of time solely
for energy harvesting, instead of decoding. During this period
of time the LED transmits by using the maximum DC bias,
in order to maximize the harvested energy by the receiver.
Thus, assuming time frames of unitary duration, there are the
following two distinct phases during a time frame:
Phase 1: The AC component of the received signal is
used for information decoding and the DC component for
energy harvesting. Let A1 and B1 ∈ [IL , IH ] denote the
peak amplitude of m(t) and DC bias, respectively. During
Phase 1, the aim is to maximize the received SINR. Since
SINR is an increasing function with respect to A1 , then A1
takes its maximum value, which, considering (2) is given by
L
L
and similarly, B1 = IH +I
. The duration of
A1 = IH −I
2
2
this phase is denoted by 0 ≤ T ≤ 1, which can be optimized
according to the QoS requirements. For a specific value of T ,
the amount of harvested energy is given by
IH + IL
[1]
+ I2 )Vt
ET S = f T (ηhPLED
2
(13)
IH +IL
ηhPLED 2 + I2
).
× ln(1 +
I0
Phase 2: In the time period 1−T , the aim is to maximize the
harvested energy, which is an increasing function with respect
to B. Thus, during Phase 2 the transmitter eliminates the AC
part and maximizes the DC bias, i.e., A = 0 and B = IH ,
where A2 and B2 ∈ [IL , IH ] denote the values of A and B,
respectively. Thus, the amount of harvested energy during this
phase, is given by
[2]

ET S =f (1 − T )(ηhPLED IH + I2 )Vt ×
(14)
ηhPLED IH + I2
ln(1 +
).
I0
Considering both phases, the total harvested energy is given
by
[1]
[2]
ET S = ET S + ET S .
(15)

2) Time-Splitting with DC Bias Optimization: This policy is
a generalization of Time-splitting. During Phase 1, the DC bias
is optimized in order to increase the harvested energy, while
it simultaneously enables information transfer, i.e., A1 > 0.
In this case, the total harvested energy is given by
ETSBO =f T (ηhPLED B1 + I2 )Vt ×
ηhPLED B1 + I2
[2]
) + ET S ,
ln(1 +
I0

(16)

where B1 is the DC bias during Phase 1.
B. Adjusting Reception
We propose the Adjustment of the field of view (FOV) policy
for the adjusting reception strategy, in order to balance the
trade-off between harvested energy and SINR. Controlling
FOV is particularly important especially when, except for
the used VLC/IR LED, there are extra light sources in the
serving area [21], e.g. neighboring LEDs that serve other
users. For the practical and efficient implementation of this
policy, electrically controllable liquid crystal (LC) lenses is a
promising technology [22].
When the aim is to maximize the SINR, the FOV is tuned
up to receive the beam of the dedicated LED only (if possible),
in order to reduce the beam overlapping. This is achieved by
tuning the FOV to the narrowest setting, that allows reception
only from that LED. On the other hand, when the aim is to
achieve a balance between SINR and harvested energy, a wider
FOV setting could be selected.
For the sake of practicality, we assume that the VLC/IR re[1]
[M]
ceiver has discrete FOV settings, i.e. Ψfov ∈ {Ψfov , .., Ψfov }.
Also, note that except for h, both PI and I2 are also discrete
functions of Ψfov , i.e., PI = PI (Ψfov ) and I2 = I2 (Ψfov ).

IV. SLIPT O PTIMIZATION
SLIPT induces an interesting trade-off between harvested
energy and QoS. In this section, we aim to balance this tradeoff by maximizing the harvested energy, while achieving the
required user QoS. In the present work, we focus on the
coordinated adjustment of transmission and reception strategy,
which can be considered as a generalization of the other
SLIPT strategies. The following optimization problems can
be formulated, based on the two techniques presented in
subsection III-C.
Regarding the QoS, two different criteria are taken into
account, namely SINR and information rate. Note that these
two criteria are not equivalent to each other, when either
of the two techniques is used, due to the time-splitting.
More specifically, since only Phase 1 is used for information
transmission (the duration of which is T ), the lower bound of
the capacity is given by [23]

e 
γ .
(17)
R = T log2 1 +
2π
A. Time-Splitting with Tunable FOV
The corresponding optimization problem can be expressed
as
max

T,Ψfov,1

s.t.

EhTS
C1
C2
C3
C4

: R ≥ Rth ,
: γ ≥ γth ,
: 0 ≤ T ≤ 1,
[1]
[M]
: Ψfov,1 ∈ {Ψfov , .., Ψfov },

(18)

where Rth and γth denote the information rate SINR and
threshold, respectively.
Theorem 1: The optimal value of T in (18) is given by
Rth

,
T∗ =
(19)
e(ηhPLED (IH −IL ))2
log2 1 + 8π(PI (Ψ∗ )+σ2 )
fov,1

C. Coordinated Transmission and Reception Adjustment
Considering (9), (15), and (16), it is revealed that both
SINR and harvested energy -apart from A1 , B1 and T also depend on the selection of Ψfov , despite the utilized
adjusting transmission technique. This dependence motivates
the coordinated transmission and reception adjustment, i.e. the
coordination between the strategy III-A1 or III-A2 and III-B,
which results in the following two policies, i.e.
•

•

Policy 1: Time-splitting with tunable FOV (III-A1 and
III-B)
Policy 2: Time-splitting with DC bias optimization and
tunable FOV (III-A2 and III-B)

Note that in both policies, during Phase 2, where the aim
is to maximize the harvested energy, the FOV setting that
[2]
maximizes ET S should be used. This is not necessarily the
widest setting, because although it increases the received
beams (if there are neighboring LEDs), it reduces g(ψ). On
the other hand, the preferable FOV setting during phase 1,
denoted by Ψfov,1 , cannot be straightforwardly determined,
since it also depends on the required QoS.

where (·)∗ denotes optimality.
Proof: The optimization problem (18) is a combinatorial
one. In order to find the optimal solution, all possible values
of Ψfov,1 have to be checked before selecting the value that
maximizes the harvested energy, EhTS , while satisfying the
constraints C1 , C2 , and C3 . For a specific specific value of
Ψfov,1 , if
L 2
(ηhPLED IH −I
)
2
< γth ,
(20)
PI (Ψfov,1 ) + σ 2
then the optimization problem is infeasible, since C2 is not
satisfied. Also, due to constraint C1 , the following limitation
is induced for T ,
Rth
.

(21)
T ≥
I −I
e(ηhPLED H 2 L )2
log2 1 + 2π(PI (Ψfov,1 )+σ2 )
Moreover, the harvested energy is decreasing with respect to
T . Thus, the optimal value of T is given by (19) and the proof
is completed.
Note that if T ∗ > 1, the optimization problem in (18) is
infeasible, due to C3 .

B. Time-Splitting with DC Bias Optimization and tunable FOV
The corresponding optimization problem can be formulated
as

Proof: Considering Proposition 1 and for a specific
value of Ψfov,1 the optimization problem in (22) can be reformulated as
EhTSBO

max

B1 ,A1 ,T

C1
C3
C4
C5
C7

s.t.

: R ≥ Rth , C2 : γ ≥ γth ,
: A1 ≤ min(B1 − IL , Ih − B1 ),
: 0 ≤ T ≤ 1,
: A1 ≥ 0, C6 : IL ≤ B1 ≤ IH ,
[1]
[M]
: Ψfov,1 ∈ {Ψfov , .., Ψfov }.

(22)

Proposition
1: The optimal value of B in (22) belongs in

L
the range IH +I
, IH .
2
Proof: The constraint C3 can be rewritten as
C3a : A1 ≤ B1 − IL , C3b : A1 ≤ IH − B1 .

The optimal value Ψfov,1 is calculated similarly to the
solution of (18). Regarding the rest optimization variables of
(22) they are optimized according to the following theorem:
Theorem 2: For a specific value of Ψfov,1 , the optimal value
of T is given by
T ∗ = argmax ẼhTSBO

(24)

K1 ≤T ≤K2

with ẼhTSBO being solely a function of T and given by (16),
by replacing A1 and B1 by
s
Rth
2π(PI (Ψfov,1 ) + σ 2 )(2 T − 1)
1
, (25)
A1 =
nhPLED
e
and
B1 = IH − A1 ,

(26)

respectively. Also,
Rth


log2 1 +

K2 = min

e(ηh1 PLED (IH −IL ))2
2
8π (PI (Ψ∗
fov,1 )+σ )

log2

Rth
1+

!


eγth , 1 .
2π



(29)

The optimization problem in (29) still cannot be easily
solved in its current form, since the objective function as well
as the constraints C1 and C2 are not concave. However, it
can be solved with low complexity by using the following
reformulation.
First, the inequalities in C1 and C3 are replaced by equalities. Then, A1 and B1 are given by (25) and (26), respectively.
By substituting T1 and B1 by (25) and (26), C1 , C3 , and C3
of (29) vanish, and the optimization problem is rewritten as

(23)

For a specific value of B1 , only one of the constraints C3a and
C3b is activated. Now, let assume that the optimal solution is
L
, for which all the constraints are satisfied. In
B1∗ < IH +I
2
L
this case, C3a is activated. However, by setting B1 = IH +I
2
the objective function is increased, while the constraints are
still satisfied. Thus, we can infer that that B1∗ is not optimal.
Consequently, Proposition 1 has been proved by contradiction.

K1 =

C1 : R ≥ Rth , C2 : γ ≥ γth ,
C3 : A1 + B1 ≤ IH , C4 : 0 ≤ T ≤ 1,
L
.
C5 : A1 ≥ 0, C6 : B1 ≥ IH +I
2

s.t.

EhTSBO

max

B1 ,A1 ,T,Ψfov,1

max

B1 ,A,T1 ∀n

s.t.

ẼhTSBO
C2 : T ≤

Rth
eγth ,
log2 (1+ 2π
)

C4 : 0 ≤ T ≤ 1,

C6 : T ≥

log2 1+

Rth

e(ηh1 PLED (IH −IL ))2
8π (PI +σ2 )

(30)
,

which is equivalent to (24), and, thus, the proof is completed.
V. S IMULATIONS

AND DISCUSSION

We assume the downlink VLC/IR system of Fig. 2, where
the user is located in a distance d = 1.5 m from the LED,
ψ = 0, and the transmitter plane is parallel to the receiver one,
i.e., ϕ = ψ. In the same room there are N other LEDs, which
simultaneously use the same frequency band. The distance
between each of them and from the dedicated LED is D = 1.5
m. We also assume f = 0.75, PLED = 20 W/A, Φ1/2 = 60
deg, σ 2 = 10−15 A2 , Lr = 0.04 m2 , η = 0.4 A/W, I0 = 10−9
A, IL = 0 A, IH = 12 mA [15], Ts = 1, ρ = 1.5, γth = 10
dB, and two settings for the FOV, i.e., Ψfov ∈ {30, 50} deg,
are considered.
Regarding the neighboring LEDs, we assume that the DC
bias and the peak amplitude are given by A′n = Bn′ = 6 mA,
∀n ∈ {1, ..., N }, while the rest parameters are equal to those
of the dedicated LED. Furthermore, the channel between them
and the user’s receiver, denoted by hn is modeled according
to (3), using the corresponding parameters. Thus, when the
widest FOV setting is selected, PI and I2 are given by

(27)

PI =

N
X

(ηhn PLED A′n )2

(31)

n=1

and
(28)

Finally, the optimal values of A1 and B1 are given by (25) and
(26), by replacing Ψfov,1 and T by Ψ∗fov,1 and T ∗ , respectively.

I2 =

N
X

ηhn PLED Bn′ ,

(32)

n=1

otherwise their values are zero.
The performance of both optimized policies of Section III-C
are compared for N = 1, while they are also presented against

energy increases with the increase of LEDs.

2.2

Policy 2

2.0

R EFERENCES

Policy 1

A =B =6 mA, T =1,
A =B =6 mA, T =1,

Harvested Energy (mW)

1.8

1.6

1

1

1

fov,1

1

1

1

fov,1

=30 deg
=50 deg

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

Infeasible for these values of

R

th

0.2
2

4

6

8

R

th

10

12

14

(bps/Hz)

Fig. 3. Harvested energy vs Rth for N = 1.

2.2

Policy 2
Policy 1

2.0

A =B =6 mA, T =1,

Harvested Energy (mW)

1.8

1

1

1

fov,1

=30 deg

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

N
Fig. 4. Harvested energy vs N for Rth = 7 bps/Hz.

the case of fixed A1 , B1 , T1 , and Ψfov,1 , which is considered
as the baseline policy. More specifically, in Fig. 3 the harvested
energy is plotted against the rate threshold. As it is observed,
both policies significantly outperform the baseline for both
values of Ψfov,1 . Regarding the baseline, the value Ψfov,1 = 50
deg reduces the harvested energy compared to Ψfov,1 = 30
deg, because g(ψ) decreases and thus, cancels the benefit
of receiving the beam of the neighboring LED. Also, the
baseline policy with Ψfov,1 = 50 deg is infeasible for medium
and high values of Rth , because the rate threshold cannot be
reached, due to the received interference. Interestingly, Policy
2 outperforms Policy 1, especially for the high region of
Rth , which is due to the extra degrees of freedom. Similar
conclusions can be obtained by Fig. 4, where the harvested
energy is plotted against the number of neighboring LEDS.
For this specific setup, the baseline with Ψfov,1 = 50 deg is not
feasible, and, thus, it is omitted. We notice here that for a small
number of neighboring LEDs, the harvested energy remains
constant, since the receiver prefers the smallest FOV setting.
However, as the number of neighboring LEDs increases, the
receiver prefers the widest FOV setting and the harvested

[1] M. Ayyash, H. Elgala, A. Khreishah, V. Jungnickel, T. Little, S. Shao,
M. Rahaim, D. Schulz, J. Hilt, and R. Freund, “Coexistence of WiFi
and LiFi toward 5G: Concepts, Opportunities, and Challenges,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 64–71, Feb. 2016.
[2] M. S. A. Mossaad, S. Hranilovic, and L. Lampe, “Visible Light Communications Using OFDM and Multiple LEDs,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 4304–4313, Nov. 2015.
[3] M. Kavehrad, “Sustainable Energy-Efficient Wireless Applications Using Light,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 66–73, Dec. 2010.
[4] S. Arnon, Ed., Visible Light Communication. Cambridge University
Press, 2015.
[5] D. Bykhovsky and S. Arnon, “Multiple Access Resource Allocation in
Visible Light Communication Systems,” J. Lightw. Technol., vol. 32,
no. 8, pp. 1594–1600, Apr. 2014.
[6] S. Sudevalayam and P. Kulkarni, “Energy Harvesting Sensor Nodes:
Survey and Implications,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 13, no. 3,
pp. 443–461, Jul. 2010.
[7] S. Nikoletseas, Y. Yang, and A. Georgiadis, Eds., Wireless Power
Transfer Algorithms, Technologies and Applications in Ad Hoc Communication Networks. Springer, 2016.
[8] J. Fakidis, S. Videv, S. Kucera, H. Claussen, and H. Haas, “Indoor
Optical Wireless Power Transfer to Small Cells at Nighttime,” J. Lightw.
Technol., vol. 34, no. 13, pp. 3236–3258, Jul. 2016.
[9] C. Carvalho and N. Paulino, “On the Feasibility of Indoor Light
Energy Harvesting for Wireless Sensor Networks,” Procedia Technology,
vol. 17, pp. 343–350, 2014.
[10] A. Nasiri, S. A. Zabalawi, and G. Mandic, “Indoor Power Harvesting
using Photovoltaic Cells for Low-Power Applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 4502–4509, Nov. 2009.
[11] Y. Li, N. Huang, J. Wang, Z. Yang, and W. Xu, “Sum Rate Maximization
for VLC Systems with Simultaneous Wireless Information and Power
Transfer,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 531–534,
Mar. 2017.
[12] Z. Wang, D. Tsonev, S. Videv, and H. Haas, “Towards Self-Powered
Solar Panel Receiver for Optical Wireless Communication,” in Proc.
IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Jun. 2014,
pp. 3348–3353.
[13] ——, “On the Design of a Solar-Panel Receiver for Optical Wireless
Communications with Simultaneous Energy Harvesting,” IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1612–1623, Aug. 2015.
[14] H. Sandalidis, A. Vavoulas, T. Tsiftsis, and N. Vaiopoulos, “Illumination,
Data Transmission and Energy Harvesting: The Threefold Advantage of
VLC,” 2017.
[15] T. Rakia, H. C. Yang, F. Gebali, and M. S. Alouini, “Optimal Design of
Dual-Hop VLC/RF Communication System with Energy Harvesting,”
IEEE Comm. Lett., vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1979–1982, Oct. 2016.
[16] ——, “Dual-Hop VLC/RF Transmission System with Energy Harvesting
Relay under Delay Constraint,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom Workshops,
Dec. 2016, pp. 1–6.
[17] T. Komine and M. Nakagawa, “Fundamental Analysis for Visible-Light
Communication System Using LED Lights,” IEEE Trans. Consum.
Electron., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 100–107, Feb. 2004.
[18] H. Ma, L. Lampe, and S. Hranilovic, “Coordinated Broadcasting for
Multiuser Indoor Visible Light Communication Systems,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 3313–3324, Sep. 2015.
[19] J. M. Kahn and J. R. Barry, “Wireless Infrared Communications,” Proc.
IEEE, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 265–298, Feb. 1997.
[20] C. Li, W. Jia, Q. Tao, and M. Sun, “Solar Cell Phone Charger Performance in Indoor Environment,” in Proc. IEEE 37th Annual Northeast
Bioengineering Conference (NEBEC), 2011, pp. 1–2.
[21] A. Al-Ghamdi and J. Elmirghani, “Performance and Field of View Optimization of an Optical Wireless Pyramidal Fly-Eye Diversity Receiver,”
Journal of optical communications, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 215–222, 2002.
[22] Y. S. Tsou, Y. H. Lin, and A. C. Wei, “Concentrating Photovoltaic
System using a Liquid Crystal Lens,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.,
vol. 24, no. 24, pp. 2239–2242, Dec. 2012.
[23] J. B. Wang, Q. S. Hu, J. Wang, M. Chen, and J. Y. Wang, “Tight Bounds
on Channel Capacity for Dimmable Visible Light Communications,” J.
Lightw. Technol., vol. 31, no. 23, pp. 3771–3779, Dec. 2013.

