## 5 Simulation Results
Moreover, Figure 8 reveals that the outage probabilities of the CC-HIR-RS-CPS scheme are lower than those of the CC-SIR-RS-CPS scheme at lower PSRs. However, the outage performance of the CC-SIR-RS-CPS scheme is lower than those of the CC-SIR-RS-CPS scheme at lower PSRs. Figure 6: Simulated outage probability results versus SNR per information bit \(E_{b}/N_{0}\) at the destination of the CC-SIR-CPS scheme applying the RGL, GL [9], SN [8], and SS [10] models, one relay, \(\rho=0.5\), and \(R=0.5\,\mathrm{bit/s/Hz}\). Figure 7: Comparison between the simulated outage probability results versus SNR per information bit \(E_{b}/N_{0}\) at the destination of the CC-HIR-RS-OPS and CC-SIR-RS-FLPS schemes for \(R=0.5\,\mathrm{bit/s/Hz}\). becomes better than that of the CC-SIR-RS-CPS scheme from a certain PSR value. This can be explained by the fact that for small PSRs, the part of EH power allocated for message decoding at the relay is high and helps to ensure error-free decoding at the relay, and therefore more relays are candidates for relay selection. However, the part of power allocated for decoding is small at high PSR levels, and, accordingly, the probability of error-free decoding at the relay decreases, leaving fewer relays for relay selection. This supports the CC-SIR-RS scheme, where, even with low power levels allocated for relay decoding, all available relays participate in the relay selection process, even with error-prone decoding. This can be helpful, especially when such relay channels have good channel fading coefficients on the forwarding relay-destination link. This explains the out-performance of the CC-SIR-RS scheme compared to that of the CC-HIR-RS scheme at higher power splitting ratios. It can also be seen from Figure 8 that the outage performances of CC-HIR-RS-OPS and CC-SIR-RS-FLPS schemes are higher than those of the CC-HIR-RS-CPS and CC-SIR-RS-CPS schemes, respectively, for the whole range of PSR values. The observed gain is due to the deployment of optimized power-splitting and fuzzy logic-based power-splitting schemes with HIR and SIR strategies, respectively. Figure 9 shows the analytical and simulated outage performance results of the CC-HIR-RS and CC-SIR-RS schemes when varying the distance between the source node and relays \(d_{SR_{r}}\) in the interval \([0,1,0.9]\) for \(E_{b}/N_{0}=10\) dB, \(n_{R}=4\), and \(R=0.5\) bit\(/\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{Hz}\). The figure shows that the outage performances of the proposed schemes decrease when the relays move toward the destination node. This can be explained by the fact that if the distance between the source node and the relay is small, the error-free decoding performance of the coded cooperative relay is higher because the receiving power at the relay is high and the outage performance of the coded cooperative schemes will therefore increase. However, as the distance between the source node and the relay increases, less energy is harvested at the relay, which affects the transmit power of the relay phase and consequently increases the outage probability of the system. In addition, the figure shows that the performance of the CC-HIR-RS scheme is better than that of the CC-SIR-RS scheme for low source-relay distances. This is due to the improved diversity capacity provided by the coded cooperative scheme with the HIR strategy, as error-free decoding is more likely when relays are close to the source node, and therefore more candidate relays are involved  
Figure 8: Numerical and simulated outage probability results of the CC-HIR-RS-CPS and CC–SIR-RS-CPS schemes when applying different \(\rho_{r}\) in the interval \([0.1,0.9]\) and comparison with the CC-HIR-RS-OPS and CC-SIR-FLPS schemes for different relay numbers, \(E_{b}/N_{0}=10\) dB, and \(\gamma_{th}=0.5\). in the proposed relay selection scheme. Therefore, outage performance is improved by improving diversity capacity.