SUBMARINE DETECTION USING UNDERWATER...
Transcript of SUBMARINE DETECTION USING UNDERWATER...
SUBMARINE DETECTION USING UNDERWATER ACOUSTIC SENSOR NETWORKS
by
Gaith A. Tellisi
B.S., Al Fateh University, 2004
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Electrical Engineering
2012
II
This thesis for the Master of Science
degree by
Gaith A. Tellisi
has been approved
by
Titsa Papantoni
Yiming J. Deng
Fernando Mancilla-David
Oct 19, 2012
III
Tellisi, Gaith A. (Master of Science, Communications Engineering, Electrical Engineering)
Submarine Detection using Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks
Thesis directed by Professor Titsa Papantoni
ABSTRACT
It is well known that submarines can hide successfully from traditional sonar systems.
For this reason, we propose a new technique implemented via the utilization of mobile robots
comprising Distributed Underwater Sensor Networks (DUWSNs). In the design and operation of
DUWSNs, the arising challenging issues are: (1) the establishing of reliable communication links
among the sensor nodes; (2) the maximization of the life time of the network; (3) the sustaining
of sufficient data rate within the network; (4) the architecture of the DUWSN and the routing
policies deployed; (5) the effectiveness of the DUWSN, regarding submarine detection and
identification. This thesis contributes towards an understanding of, and solution to, the impact of
the latency on DUWSNs in underwater acoustic environments. Moreover, a new underwater K-
Cells transmission protocol is implemented to overcome and exploit the large propagation delay
inherent to acoustic underwater networks. We develop a novel DUWSNs that consists of mobile
elementary nodes (ENs), a backbone network of cluster-heads (CHs) and a Base Station (BS). We
provide a DUWSN node clustering technique that attains high data rate and low energy
consumption; the DUWSN utilizes the audio signal emitted by the submarine’s engine to detect
its presence. We also present some simulation results using MATLAB.
The form and the content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved by: Prof. Titsa Papantoni
IV
DEDICATION Thanks God for giving me the strength to finish this journey…..
This thesis is dedicated to my passed away Dad and to my wonderful Mom who have supported
me all the way since the beginning of my studies;
To my brother Ehab, who has done more than enough to help me during my studies, and has been
a great source of motivation and support;
Finally, many thanks go to my sister Rasha, who protected my Mom during the hard time that my
country went through.
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe my gratitude to several individuals who have made this dissertation possible by either their
contribution or valuable assistance in the preparation and completion of this study.
First and foremost, I want to express my gratitude to my advisor Dr. Titsa Papantoni whose
motivation and encouragement I will never forget. It has been an honor to be one of her Master’s
students. I appreciate all her contributions of time and ideas to make my research happen. I am
also grateful to Dr. Yiming J. Deng with whom I have interacted the most during the course of
my graduate studies for his encouragement and helpful advice.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for all their love and encouragement.
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
1. Introduction and Motivation…………………………………………………………..... 1
1.1 Thesis’s Roadmap…………………………………………………………………...... 3
2. Background ……………………………………………………………………….......... 4
2.1 Characteristics of Underwater Acoustic Channels…………….……………………… 4
2.2 Differences between M-UWSNs and ground Sensor Networks……………………... 5
3. Mobile Distributed-Underwater Sensor Networks Structure………………………...… 6
3.1. Underwater Positioning…………………………...…………………………….......... 6
3. 2 System Model and Problem Formalization………………………………...………… 6
3.3 Design Methodology for the M-DUWSN…………………………………………… 8
4. Acoustic Channel in Underwater Wireless Sensor Network…………………………… 19
4.1. Related Work ………………………………………………………………………… 19
4.2. Underwater Acoustic Channel ………………………………………………………. 20
4.2.1. Underwater Environment……………………………………………………........... 20
4.2.2. Propagation Delay………………………………………………………………….. 22
4.3. Transmission Protocol (Random Access Transmission Protocol)………………........ 24
4.3.1. The system model and the algorithms………………………………………............ 25
4.3.2. Underwater Signal Propagation ……………………………………………………. 30
4.4. Energy-Efficient and Delay Decreasing Routing Protocol……………………..…..... 31
4.5. Numerical Evaluation to Compute the Expected Delay for both WSNs and D-
MWSNs…………………………………………………………………............................
37
5.Conclusions……………..………………………………………………………………. 51
Bibliography……….……………………………………………………………………… 53
VII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
3.1. The structure of the Distributed Mobil Fish Network - Underwater Sensor Networks
(DMFN-UWSN) and Submarine………………………………………………………...… 7
3.2. The general hierarchical structure of the Distributed Mobile Sensor Network –
Distributed Underwater Sensor Networks (DUWSNs)…………………………………… 8
3.3. The architecture of the Distributed Mobile Sensor Network – Distributed Underwater
Sensor Networks (DUWSNs)……………………………………………........................... 10
3.4. The reorganization of all ENs around each CH……………………………………..... 11
3.5. Some example of some other cluster shapes………………………………………….. 11
3.6. The architecture between odd and even layers……………………………………….. 12
3.7. The architecture of the reorganized Distributed Mobile Network – Distributed
Underwater Sensor Networks (DUWSNs)………………………………………….…… 13
3.8. The architecture of the Distributed Mobile Network – Distributed Underwater Sensor
Networks (DUWSNs)…………………………………………………………………....... 14
3.9. The architecture of the reorganized Distributed Mobile Network – Distributed
Underwater Sensor Networks (DUWSNs)………………………………………….…….. 14
3.10. The architecture of a different reorganized Distributed Mobile Network –
Distributed Underwater Sensor Networks (DUWSNs)…………………………………..... 15
3.11. The architecture of the reorganized (DUWSN) and passing by submarine………..... 16
3.12. Submarine Detection using the proposed SDCA-UVAD and routing the alarm to
the BS……………………………………………………………………………………... 17
3.13. Submarine Detection using the proposed SDCA-UVAD and routing the alarm to
the BS………………………………………………………………………………….….. 17
3.14. The architecture of the reorganized (DUWSN) and passing by submarine (a) First
position (b) Second position (c) Third position………………………………………….... 18
4.1: Standard salinity profile [41]………………………………………………………….. 23
4.2: Standard Temperature Profile [42]……………………………………………………. 23
4.3: Delay between two sensors with distance 100m using Equations 1-4…………..…..... 24
4.4: The k-cells algorithm…………………………………………………………….....…. 26
4.5: The operation of the 2-cell algorithm (Imaginary Stack device)………………..…..... 29
VIII
4.6: The 2-cell algorithm (Imaginary Stack device & Arrival Time)………………..…...... 29
4.7: The architecture of the M-DUWSNs………………………………………….………. 31
4.8: The shortest path direction depends on the BS’s location…………………………..… 33
4.9: The shortest path direction toward the BS is chosen……………………………….…. 34
4.10: Compare the delay between the two cases: (a) The shortest path direction toward
the BS is chosen (b) a random path toward the BS is chosen to forward the alarm………. 34
4.11: Compare the delay between the two cases: (a) The shortest path direction toward
the BS is chosen (b) a random path toward the BS is chosen to forward the alarm…….… 35
4.12: Update the M-DUWSN and Replace the expired ENs……………………….……… 36
4.13: Update the M-DUWSN and Replace the expired CHs…………………………........ 36
4.14: Generating a random number of Poisson arrivals…………………………................ 37
4.15: The system keeps sensing until two consecutive non-collision slots detected, and a
window of …………………………………………………………………………….. 38
4.16: Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell algorithm. Admission Delay 100 Slots……..... 41
4.17: Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell algorithm. Admission Delay 200 Slot………... 41
4.18: Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell. Admission Delay 400 Slots………………….. 42
4.19: Expected Delays for 3-cell algorithm. Admission Delay =100, 200 and 400 Slots…. 42
4.20: Expected Delays for 4-cell algorithm. Admission Delay =100, 200 and 400 Slot….. 43
4.21: underwater sensor networks-Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell algorithm
Admission Delay =100 Slots………………………………………………………………. 43
4.22: UWSNs- Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell algorithm. Admission Delay =200
Slots………………………………………………………………………………….……. 44
4.23: UWSNs- Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell algorithm. Admission Delay =400
Slots………………………………………………………………..…………………...…. 44
4.24: UWSNs- Expected Delays for 3-cell algorithm. Admission Delay = 100, 200 and
400 Slots………………………………………………………………………………...… 45
4.25: UWSNs- Expected Delays for 4-cell algorithm. Admission Delay =100, 200 and
400 Slots……………………………………………………………………………..……. 45
4.26: UWSNs Vs WSN- Expected Delays for 3-cell algorithm. Admission Delay =100,
200 and 400 Slots………………………………………………….................................... 46
4.27: Expected Delays for 6-cell Vs 7-cell algorithm. Admission Delay =200 slots…….... 46
4.28: Expected Delays for 6-cell algorithm. Admission Delay =400 Slots……………..…. 47
4.29: UWSNs-Expected Delays for 6-cell Vs 7-cell algorithm. Admission Delay =200
IX
Slots…………………………………………………………………………………….…. 47
4.30: UWSNs-Expected Delays for 6-cell Vs 7-cell algorithm. Admission Delay =400
Slots………………………………………………………………………………….……. 48
4.31: UWSNs Vs WSN-Expected Delays for 6-cell Vs 7-cell algorithm. Admission
Delay =200 Slots………………………………………………………………………...... 48
4.32: UWSNs Vs WSN-Expected Delays for 6-cell Vs 7-cell algorithm. Admission
Delay =400 Slots……………………………………………………………………….…. 49
Figure 4.33: Average Access Delay for 7-Cell (Admission Delay =400 and Lambda
=0.4),ATL S-ALOHA, and S-ALOHA protocols…………………………………………. 50
X
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Comparison of the acoustic, radio wave and optical communication in sea water
[31]………………………………………………………………………………………..... 21
2 2-Cell Algorithm………………………………………………..…………....................... 28
3 Communication rules between ENs, CHs, and BS…………………….…........................ 32
1
1: Introduction and Motivation
In the last few years, significant research effort has been dedicated in the area of
communications within Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). In this thesis, we focus on research
on Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks (UWSNs), since they are deployed for tasks such as
military monitoring, ocean data collection, disaster detection, oilfield monitoring, etc. Sensor
networks have been envisioned as powerful solutions for several applications, [1-3], such as: i)
Surveillance, including reconnaissance, targeting, and intrusion detection; ii) Environmental
monitoring, where pollution in near-shore oceans is an urgent issue and needs close watch; iii)
Underwater explorations, where such explorations are difficult for human beings due to the high
water pressure, unpredictable underwater activities and vast size of unknown area. UWSNs may
also help in the exploration of underwater minerals and oilfields, as well as in determining
routines for laying undersea cables, etc; iv) Disaster prevention via continuous underwater
monitoring.
For viability of their deployment, the UWSNs must be able to coordinate their operation
by exchanging information. Numerous research activities are currently focusing on the
development of network protocols for wireless sensor networks, where new efficient and reliable
data such communication technologies are demanded by UWSNs, due to the unique and
challenging characteristics of the underwater acoustic communication channel, including limited
bandwidth capacity and variable delays.
The major requirements in the design of reliable Mobile – Underwater Sensor Networks
(M-UWSNs) systems include: (1) Limited power, since underwater systems are usually designed
for relatively long-term monitoring. (2) Sensor localization, for effective monitoring. (3)
Reduced delays, to secure effective communication.
In this thesis, a single interesting application has been chosen on behalf of UWSN
deployment. In particular, the selected application corresponds to military target tracking,
namely to submarine detection. Usually, modern submarines are protected by the newly
developed Low Probability Detection technology LPD [9]. To reduce a submarine’s acoustic
signature, the hull of the submarine is shelled with rubber anti-sonar protection tiles that reduce
acoustic detection. The LPD technology hides the submarine's acoustic signature to thwart active
2
SONAR probing and also reduces the intra-submarine noise to foil passive SONAR listening. The
submarine's noise level is comparable to ocean's background noise, thus legible acoustic signature
may only be collected within a very short distance from the submarine. Considering this kind of
counter-measure, M-UWSNs become an ideal solution for submarine detection. A number of
underwater robots and a large amount of underwater sensor nodes can be air-dropped to the
venue. In real time, each sensor node monitors local underwater activities and reports sensed data
via multi-hop acoustic routes to a distant command center. The new feature of this type of M-
UWSN systems (as compared to previous M-UWSN systems for estuary monitoring) may be the
addition of a built-in Underwater Voice Activity Detector per each UWSN, to avoid false alarms.
This work focuses on mobile underwater sensor networks (M-UWSNs) architectures
consisting of a large number of low cost sensors that can move with water current and dispersion.
Those M-UWSNs must be organized efficiently, to transmit/receive data with minimal delay.
The underwater communication links connecting those underwater devices are also designed to
update effectively the control unit in the main station with current collected data. Such design
may also help in energy conservation, since then the induced reduction in collisions results in
increase of the sensors’ life span. Unlike traditional Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs),
Underwater Sensor Networks (UWSNs) induce special design and resources constraints such as
limited amount of energy, short communication range, low bandwidth, as well as limited
processing and storage space in each network [2]. UWSNs present a new research topic,
introducing several new problems, due to the unique properties of the underwater environment.
An underwater acoustic channel (chapter 3) is different from a ground-based radio channel in
many aspects, including [1]:
1) Bandwidth is extremely limited. The attenuation of acoustic signals increases with frequency
and range [4] [5] [7]. Consequently, the feasible band is extremely small. For example, a
short range system operating over several tens of meters may have available bandwidth of a
hundred kHz; a medium-range system operating over several kilometers has a bandwidth in
the order of ten kHz; and a long-range system operating over several tens of kilometers is
limited to only a few kHz of bandwidth [8] [7].
2) The propagation delay is long. The transmission speed of acoustic signals in salty water is
around 1500 meter/s [6], which is five times of magnitude lower than the speed of
electromagnetic wave in free space. Correspondently, propagation delay in an underwater
3
channel becomes significant. This is one of the essential characteristics of underwater
channels and has profound implications on localization and time synchronization.
3) The channel characteristics vary with time and highly depend on the location of the
transmitter and receiver. The fluctuation nature of the channel causes signal distortions.
4) The bit error probability is much higher, while temporary loss of connectivity sometimes
occurs, due to the extreme characteristics of the channel. The practical deployment and
design of UWSNs face some special challenges: First, the cost of manufacturing, deployment,
maintenance and recovery of underwater equipments is much higher than that of their
ground-based counterparts. Second, energy saving/efficiency is a critical issue for UWSNs.
1.1 Thesis’s Roadmap
The remainder of this dissertation is organized as follows:
In Chapter 2, some background on underwater sensor networks is presented. First, the
characteristics of underwater acoustic channels are reviewed. Then, the distinctions between M-
UWSNs and ground sensor networks are discussed.
Chapter 3 focuses on the structure of Mobile Distributed-Underwater Sensor Networks (M-
DUWSNs) and is organized as follows: Section 3.1 introduces the factors that could affect the
position of each mobile elementary node (EN). Section 3.2 presents the structure of the proposed
M-DUWSN. The proposed model and some results are demonstrated in Section 3.3.
Chapter 4 focuses on the Acoustic Channel in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks (UWSNs).
The main objective in this chapter is to enhance the performance of the acoustic channel by
decreasing the propagation delay. This is attained via the deployment of a novel underwater
Random Access Algorithm. This chapter is organized as follows: Section 4.1 presents some
related work. In Section 4.2, the underwater acoustic channel is analyzed. Section 4.3 introduces
a novel transmission protocol for both WSNs and UWSNs. Section 4.4 focuses on energy-
efficiency and delay decrease via the deployment of a routing protocol. In Section 4.5,
simulation results are presented.
4
2: Background
2.1 Characteristics of Underwater Acoustic Channels
Underwater acoustic channels are temporally variable due to the nature of the
transmission medium and the physical properties of the environments [10]. Radio and optical
waves are considered as candidates for wireless communication in underwater environments.
However, neither of these latter waves is appropriate for M-UWSNs. The first reason is that the
radio waves suffer from high attenuation in salty water. Radio Frequency (RF) signals can
propagate at a long distance through conductive water only at extra low frequencies, 30-300 Hz,
which requires large antennae and high transmission power [4]. Thus, the high attenuation of
radio waves in water makes them infeasible for M-UWSNs. Second, optical signals usually suffer
from the short-range and line-of-sight problems. Moreover, optical signals are severely impaired
by scattering when used in underwater, and the transmission of optical signals requires high
precision in communication. In short, it is widely accepted that acoustic channels are the most
appropriate physical communication links for underwater environments.
As compared to radio channels, underwater acoustic channels have the following unique
features. (1) Long propagation delays: The propagation speed of sound in water is about 1500m/s,
which is 5 times of magnitude lower than that of radio, m/sec. Moreover, the propagation
speed of sound in water is affected by many properties of the water medium such as temperature
and salinity. Such low propagation speed of acoustic signals results in a very long propagation
even in a short distance. (2) Low accessible bandwidth: The available bandwidth of underwater
acoustic channels is very limited due to absorption and most acoustic systems operate below 30
kHz, which is extremely low compared with radio networks. Moreover, the available bandwidth
of acoustic channels depends on both transmission range and frequency. As a result, the
achievable bit-rate in acoustic channels is also determined by both transmission range and
frequency. (3) High channel error rates: The quality of acoustic channels is affected by some
factors such as signal energy loss and noise. Energy loss comes from signal attenuation and
geometry spreading, where signal attenuation is caused by the absorption of acoustic energy
(which increases with distance and frequency), and geometry spreading is caused by the
expansion of the wave fronts. Noise, man-made noise or ambient noise, clearly disturbs the
channels, multi-path possibly introduces inter symbol interference (ISI). All these factors
contribute to the high error rates of acoustic channels.
5
In short, underwater acoustic channels are featured with large propagation delays, limited
available bandwidth and high error rates. Furthermore, the bandwidth of underwater acoustic
channels is determined by both the communication range and frequency of acoustic signals. The
bigger the communication range, the lower the bandwidth of underwater acoustic channels.
2.2 Differences between M-UWSNs and ground Sensor Networks
The main differences between the M-UWSNs and ground sensor networks include the
following [9]:
• Communication Method: as explained before, RF channels do not work well in
underwater environments. Instead, acoustic channels are the practical communication
method for M-UWSNs. The unique features of underwater acoustic channels: long
propagation delays, low communication bandwidth and high error rates, make the
protocols proposed for ground sensor networks unsuitable for M-UWSNs.
• Cost: while ground sensor networks are expected to become inexpensive, underwater
sensors are expensive devices. This is mainly due to the small relative number of
suppliers.
• Deployment and environments: An M-UWSN is usually deployed in 3-dimensional
space, whereas most ground sensor networks work in 2-dimensional space. The 3-
dimensional deployment makes many protocols (such as localization and routing)
designed for ground sensor networks unsuitable for M-UWSNs. Furthermore, the
physical environments of M-UWSNs are much harsher than those of terrestrial sensor
networks.
• Power: the required power for the acoustic underwater communications is higher that in
ground radio communications because of the different physical-layer technology, the
longer distance, and the more complex signal processing techniques implemented at the
receivers.
• Memory: while ground sensors have very limited storage capacity, underwater sensors
require some data cashing ability, since the underwater channel may be intermittent.
6
3: Mobile Distributed-Underwater Sensor Networks Structure
Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks (UWSNs) represent a promising approach to a
wide range of potential applications, both civilian and military [11-13]. In particular, UWSNs are
becoming increasingly important in oceanographic applications as well as in monitoring efforts of
the undersea world: UWSNs facilitate unmanned underwater explorations and large-scale
underwater monitoring with reduced implementation cost and increased operational frequency
[14]. However, the lifetime of a UWSN is largely restricted by the energy constraints of the
sensor nodes and the harsh conditions of the underwater acoustic transmission channels. In this
chapter, we develop a mobile distributed UWSN clustered architecture, named Mobile
Distributed Underwater Wireless Sensor Network (M-DUWSN), that prolongs the life time of the
network, by increasing the efficiency of the per sensor energy utilization. We first consider the
problem of determining the network mobility management scheme that conserves energy and also
allows for easy sensor replacement. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 3.1 introduces
the factors that could affect the position of each mobile Elementary Node (EN). Section 3.2
presents the structure of the proposed M- DUWSN. The proposed model and some results are
demonstrated in Section 3.3.
3.1. Underwater Positioning
Many ocean observation and surveillance applications require accurate position
knowledge of the mobile elementary nodes (ENs). Those ENs communicate with each other by
messages exchange, to attain position estimation with subsequent possible position updating, as
may be required. There are several factors that might affect the spatial distribution of the
underwater network such as current, temperature, depth, salinity, pressure, as well as the
deployment of a bad communications system. Therefore, the underwater channel differs from
node to node.
3.2. System Model and Problem Formalization
The general operational architecture of the M-DUWSNs is depicted in Figure. 3.1, where
sensors are symbolized by fish and clusters are symbolized by fish swarms. The objective of the
DUWSN is the detection of adversarial submarines. The architecture of the DUWSN is
comprised of clusters of Elementary Nodes (ENs), where each cluster contains a Cluster Head
(CH) and where CHs are connected with a Base Station (BS) via a backbone network. The BS is
7
basically a main-frame computer located at a carrier. The issues arising in the proposed M-
DUWSN’s architecture are: (1) the establishing of reliable communication links among the sensor
nodes; (2) the maximization of the life time of the network; (3) the sustaining of sufficient data
rates within the network; (4) the routing policies deployed in the backbone network; (5) the
effective submarine detection and identification.
Figure 3.1. The structure of the Distributed Mobil Fish Network - Underwater Sensor Networks (DMFN-UWSN) and Submarine
The ENs, CHs and BS perform the following functions: (1) The ENs are grouped into
distinct clusters, where each cluster contains a single CH. Each EN collects local data and
transmits them to its local CH. Some constructions of robot ENs are discussed in [18]-[21]. (2)
Each CH collects the data sent by its local ENs and processes them, using an operation
determined by the network signal processing objectives. The CH then processes the compounded
processed data, utilizing an operation that is determined by the network signal processing
objectives, and transmits the outcome to selected neighboring CHs and/or the BS. The CHs have
processing capabilities, energy and life-spans that are much higher than those of the ENs, where
their life-spans and energy may still be limited. (3) BS fuses data transmitted to it by neighboring
CHs, utilizing an operation that is determined by the network signal processing objectives. The
BS has practically unlimited life- span [17]. (4) All sensor nodes (ENs) and cluster heads are
distributed randomly underwater per unit-size region (Ocean Depth X Spreading Length). (5)
8
Each EN and CH can move freely and are assumed to be unmanned robots. (6) Each mobile CH
has a specific communication range that includes all ENs in the area of interest. The CHs are
organized in layers by ocean depth, where each CH can only communicate with the CHs in the
layer directly above its own. As an only exception, the CHs located in the highest layer (those
closest to the ocean service) can communicate with each other.
3.3 Design Methodology for the M-DUWSN
The system incorporates many sensors where each sensor has multitasks such as: (1)
collecting data; (2) transmitting; (3) receiving; (4) processing (5) moving. Usually, both
transmitting and moving are the most expensive in terms of energy consumption. Efficient
techniques for multi-access and data forwarding play a significant role in reducing energy
consumption. Also, a mechanism may be needed to dynamically control the mode of the sensors
(switching between sleeping mode, wake-up mode, and working mode), to possibly conserve
more energy. In addition, when sensors run out of battery power, they should be able to pop up to
the water surface for recharging or replacing, [14].
Figure 3.2. The general hierarchical structure of the Distributed Mobile Sensor Network – Distributed Underwater Sensor Networks (DUWSNs)
9
In mobile DUWSNs, sensor localization is needed because most of the underwater
network’s sensors are mobile with the current. To find the locations of mobile sensors in aquatic
environments is very challenging. At the same time, the improvement of localization accuracy
needs to be considered, while such accuracy could be significantly affected by poor acoustic
channel quality and node mobility. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 exhibit the localization process.
The steps needed for the construction of the general hierarchical structure are as follows:
(1) The number of layers is calculated based on the depth distance between the ocean’s surface
and its bottom.
(2) The cluster heads (CHs) are inserted in each layer as shown in Figure. 3.3. where each odd
layer has (M) cluster heads and where each even layer has (M-1) cluster heads; their specific
locations per layer are assigned via the use of equations (3.1) and (3.2).
Odd Layer:
Even Layer:
(3) Insert the mobile sensor nodes (ENs) randomly as shown in Figure. 3.3. The sensor nodes
and cluster heads are marked by black and yellow circles, respectively. Each EN knows the
location of itself and its neighbour and is assigned a unique ID in the network. Data and alarms
are collected by underwater local sensor nodes and relayed by some cluster heads. They are
finally fused at the base station (BS) which is equipped with both acoustic and Radio Frequency
(RF) modems that can transmit data to the on-shore command centre by radio or satellite.
10
Figure 3.3. The architecture of the Distributed Mobile Sensor Network – Distributed Underwater Sensor Networks (DUWSNs)
(4) Reorganize the whole sensor population, so that each cluster head (CH) is surrounded by
eight sensor nodes (ENs) in diameter d, as shown in Figure. 3.4, using Equations (3.3) and (3.4).
Each one of the inner and outer circles has four ENs, while consecutive sensors in each circle are
90 degrees apart.
11
Figure 3.4. The reorganization of all ENs around each CH
Those sensors are randomly distributed, then reorganized as shown in Figure 3.3, i.e. the
number of sensors and their locations in each cluster could be changed based on the objective of
the network, and those could be also randomly distributed as shown in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.5. Example of some other cluster shapes
(5) Each cluster head (CH) can only communicate with its two closest cluster heads in the layer
above its own (Cross-section between them as shown in Figure. 3.6). This implies that there is no
connection between cluster heads that are located in the same layer (no cross-section).
12
Figure 3.6. The architecture between odd and even layers
(6) The general re-structure of the proposed model is shown in Figure. 3.6, where the number of
CHs and ENs vary, depending on the number of layers (Depth) and desired spreading length.
13
Figure 3.7. The architecture of the reorganized Distributed Mobile Network – Distributed
UnderWater Sensor Networks (DUWSNs)
To validate the effectiveness of our proposed scheme, Matlab is used to simulate the proposed
model and test its mobility management strategy. In the simulation, there are more than 103-256
mobile sensor nodes and 13-32 mobile cluster heads, first distributed randomly, as shown in
Figure. 3.7. All sensors are then reorganized using Equations (1.1)-(1.4), as shown in Figure. 3.8
and 3.9.
14
Figure 3.8. The architecture of the Distributed Mobile Network – Distributed Underwater Sensor Networks (DUWSNs)
Figure 3.9. The architecture of the reorganized Distributed Mobile Network – Distributed Underwater Sensor Networks (DUWSNs)
15
Figure 3.10. The architecture of a different reorganized Distributed Mobile Network – Distributed Underwater Sensor Networks (DUWSNs)
(7) Assign a random path to the underwater submarine. The submarine is detected as soon as the
submarine’s engine sound starts reaching the ENs, as shown in Figure. 3.10.
(8) As soon as some EN detects a suspicious sound, it sends an alarm to the CH and then to the
Base station (BS), using an assigned path (See chapter 5).
16
Figure 3.11. The architecture of the reorganized (DUWSN) and passing by submarine
Our objective is to detect the presence and trajectory of a submarine using the proposed
M-DUWSN. As mention earlier, an underwater voice activity detector is embedded in each
sensor, to detect the submarine’s engine sound. Figure 3.11 exhibits the scenario where a
submarine moves from the first to the second position. The clusters located in the vicinity of
those positions will detect the sound of the engine, while pertinent alarms will be immediately
transmitted to the BS using the routing protocol that will be explained in Chapter 4. Figure 3.12
exhibits the same detecting process via a different route. The simulation results using MATLAB
are shown in Figure 3.13.
17
Figure 3.12 Submarine Detection using the proposed SDCA-UVAD and routing the alarm to the
BS
Figure 3.13 Submarine Detection using the proposed SDCA-UVAD and routing the alarm to the
BS
18
Fig 3.14. The architecture of the reorganized (DUWSN) and passing by submarine: (a) First position (b) Second position (c) Third position
19
4: Acoustic Channel in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks
Underwater acoustic wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) consist of a variable number of
ENs that have the ability to communicate via an acoustic signal that has been sent through an
underwater channel. The design of an acoustic underwater channel could be somehow
challenging because of many constrains and limitations in underwater environments, such as
large propagation delays, limited bandwidth and high bit error rate. The main objective of this
chapter is to enhance the performance of the acoustic channel by decreasing the propagation
delay in such a large underwater network, using a novel underwater Random Access Algorithm.
In this chapter, Section 4.1 presents some related work. In Section 4.2, the underwater acoustic
channel is analyzed. Section 4.3 introduces a novel transmission protocol for both WSNs and
UWSNs. Section 4.4 focuses on energy-efficiency and delay decrease using some routing
protocol, while simulation results are presented in Section 4.5.
4.1. Related Work
Object tracking and monitoring in underwater are currently implemented by distributed
underwater wireless sensor networks whose architectures, operations and performance demands
are dictated by the tracking and monitoring objectives, and are also constrained by the
characteristics and limitations of the environment. Within the statistical inference domain, the
tracking and monitoring objectives are classified as either hypothesis testing (detection) or
parameter estimation or estimation of the acting data generating process, and the pertinent
performance criteria include decision/estimation accuracy and convergence rate, where
detection/estimation accuracy is generally monotonically increasing with the number of
observation data processed, [23]. When time constraints are imposed on high accuracy
detection/estimation, the consequence is increase in the required overall data rates. At the same
time, in the distributed wireless networks considered, observation data may be collected and
processed by life-limited nodes, whose life-span is a function of the data rates they process, [24]-
[34].
Several underwater communication models for acoustic underwater channels were
proposed recently, focusing on the acoustic channel from different prospectives; for example,
salinity, temperature, depth, error, delay, energy, path loss and the deployed communication
technique. These distinctive features of UWSNs pose many new challenges for delivering
20
information from ENs to CHs in underwater sensor networks scenarios. In [35] a MAC layer
protocol was developed to attempt to deal with the long propagation delays. The protocol actually
sends synchronization messages containing a transmission time schedule for each node to attempt
to avoid collisions and delays. In [36] a protocol is presented to allow nodes to use a low-power
wakeup mode to conserve energy when idle. [37] presents an analysis of the effect of the
bandwidth-distance relationship on routing decisions based on hop length for energy-efficient
routing. However, in this chapter a new event random access protocol is developed to enhance the
communication link between ENs, CHs, and BS to attain energy efficiency, reliable data transfer
and decrease expected delays.
4.2. Underwater Acoustic Channel
4.2.1. Underwater Environment
The transmission medium in any underwater communication channel may be: (1) Sound
for acoustic communication; (2) Electromagnetic waves for radio wave communication; and (3)
Light for optical communication. As mentioned in Chapter 2, neither radio waves nor optical
communication perform well in deep underwater environments, while acoustic communication is
then widely used, due to the low attenuation of sound in water,(see Table 4.1). Although radio
waves propagate faster, in comparison to acoustic waves, they strongly attenuate, especially in
salt water, and propagate at long distances through conductive seawater, only at extra low
frequencies (30-300Hz) requiring large antenna and high transmitter power [38]-[40]. However
[41], electromagnetic wave are preferred in shallow waters, subject to certain specific conditions.
Optical communications have a greater advantage in data rates exceeding 1 Giga bps [38].
However, when used in underwater environments, the light is rapidly absorbed and the
communication is profoundly affected by its scattering. Consequently, transmission of optical
signals requires high precision in pointing the narrow laser beams [39]. Table 1 shows the
different characteristic of the acoustic, radio and optical propagation in seawater.
21
Table1: Comparison of the acoustic, radio wave and optical communication in seawater [31]
Acoustic Radio Optical
Speed Propagation 1500m/s 3x10^8 m/s 3x10^8 m/s
Power Loss >0.1 dB/m/Hz ~28 dB/km/100MHz Turbidity
Bandwidth ~kHz ~Mhz ~10-150Mhz
Antenna Size ~0.1m ~0.5m ~0.1m
Frequency Band ~kHz ~Mhz ~10^14- 10^15 Hz
Transmission Range ~50m-5km ~1m-100m 1m-100m
Underwater acoustic communication is a technique for sending and receiving messages
underwater using the propagation of sound. Typical frequencies associated with underwater
acoustics are between 10 Hz and 1 MHz. The slow propagation speed of sound in underwater is
1500m/s which is five orders of magnitude lower than that for radio and optical waves [42]. The
features of the acoustic channel are large propagation delay (0.67s/km) [41], large delay variance,
limited bandwidth and high bit error rate [40] – [42].
The major challenges in designing underwater acoustic networks are [43-46]:
• Low propagation speed which results in large propagation delays.
• Limited battery power that usually cannot be recharged requiring the deployment of
energy efficient communication protocols.
• Underwater sensors are prone to failures because of fouling and corrosion.
• High bit error and temporary losses of connectivity (shadow zone) will be experienced.
• The available bandwidth is limited and depends on the transmission distance.
• The underwater channel is severally impaired, especially due to multipath and fading
problems.
22
4.2.2. Propagation Delay
The sound speed in seawater depends on water properties such as temperature, salinity
and pressure (or depth). The speed of sound in seawater increases with the increase of any of the
above three parameters. This may lead to large variations in propagation speed, even for equal
distances. The underwater propagation speed has been modeled in [43] as follows:
Since pressure is a function of depth, it is customary to express the sound speed (c) in m/s
as an empirical function of temperature (T) in Celsius, salinity (S) in parts per thousand and depth
(D) in meters. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show the standard salinity and temperature profile in the ocean.
Sound speed may be calculated using one of the formulas above. Therefore, many calculations
were performed based on the assumption that the salinity is constant, or nearly so. This
assumption is justified by the observation that the typical range of salinities in the open ocean is
usually small and that their impact on the speed of sound is practically negligible. In coastal
areas, and near rivers or ice, however, the assumption is not generally valid [48]. There are
several underwater sound speed equations (1-5); we may use Equation 4.5, for example. It is
important to note that, unlike in ground radio links, distance alone is not sufficient for
determining delays. Some underwater short links could induce longer delays, as compared to long
wireless links.
23
Figure 4.1: Standard salinity profile [41]
Figure 4.2: Standard Temperature Profile [42]
The slow propagation speed of sound in seawater contributes to large propagation delays,
regarding system performance. The propagation delay may be calculated by the following
equation:
24
; where t is the propagation delay (in second), d is the distance between two nodes (in
meters) and c is the sound of speed (in m/s). We will talk about the effect of this propagation
delay on our K-cells algorithm later. Figure 4.3 shows how the delay between two sensors in
fixed distance from each other (100m) changes, for varying depths, where each one of Equations
(4.1) to (4.5) is used in the calculation of the speed of sound.
Figure 4.3: Delay between two sensors with distance 100m using Equations 1-4
4.3. Transmission Protocol (Random Access Transmission Protocol)
Random Access Transmission Protocols are implemented in this chapter, first for the
wireless on ground surface case, and then for the underwater case. We present and analyze a class
of limited sensing random access algorithms with powerful properties for both the on ground
surface Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) and the Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks
(UWSNs). We note that the algorithm has been previously implemented in on ground surface
wireless mobile environments. In this chapter, we will apply it to the underwater sensor networks
environment and compare then its performance with that of the on ground surface case. We start
by considering packet networks, and independent users whose identities are initially unknown to
the system and who transmit through a single common channel. The deployed transmission
protocol must then necessarily belong to the class of Random Access Algorithms (RAAs),[50].
25
Such scenarios arise, for example, in the Ethernet environment, as well as in the signaling stage
of packet radio and cellular telephony. The class of RAAs includes three subclasses, depending
on the level of channel sensing required by the users in the protocol operations. The Minimal
Sensing (MS) subclass requires that each user sense the transmission channel only at times when
he transmits. The Limited Sensing (LS) subclass requires that each user sense the transmission
channel continuously from the time he generates a packet to the time that this packet is
successfully transmitted; this subclass contains a number of algorithms, [51]-[53] with various
characteristics discussed in the paragraph below. The Full Sensing (FS) subclass requires that
each user know the overall feedback history of the transmission channel from the time when the
system starts operating, [54]; this subclass contains algorithms, [50], [54], whose operations are
of just academic interest, since the level of channel sensing they require is clearly non-
implementable.
The limit Poisson user model consists of infinitely many independent Bernoulli users and
it represents a worst case scenario for the study of RAAs, within a large class of user models, as
proven in [55].
In this thesis, we present a class of LS RAAs that attain the same throughput and also
possess similar resistance to channel errors as the algorithm in [53]. The algorithms exhibit
varying delay behavior for low rates and possess advantageous operational characteristics. We
will focus on a single member in the class. The collision resolution operations of the latter
algorithm can be depicted by a k-cell stack; we thus name the algorithm, the k-cell algorithm.
4.3.1. The system model and the algorithms:
We assume packet-transmitting users, a slotted channel, binary collision-versus-non-
collision (C-NC) feedback after each slot, zero propagation delays, and initially absence of
feedback errors. We also assume that collided packets are fully destroyed and retransmission is
then necessary. Time is measured in slot units; slot t occupies the time interval [t, t+1) and xt
denotes the feedback that corresponds to slot t; xt = C and xt = NC then represent collision and
non-collision in slot, respectively.
26
Figure 4.4: The k-cells algorithm
Each algorithm in the class is independently and asynchronously implemented by the
users. Indeed, in the limited sensing environment, it is required that each user monitor the
channel feedback only from the time he generates a packet to the time that this packet is
successfully transmitted. Therefore, the users’ knowledge of the channel feedback history is
asynchronous. The objective in this case is to prevent new arrivals from interfering with some
collision resolution in progress. This is possible if each user can decide whether or not a collision
resolution is in progress within a finite number of slots from the time he generates a new packet.
The possibility of such decision can only be induced by the operational characteristics of the
algorithm. As we will explain below, each algorithm in the class possesses the appropriate
operational characteristics for such decisions.
Each algorithm in the class utilizes a window of size ∆ as a operational parameter and
induces a sequence of consecutive Collision Resolution Intervals (CRIs). The window length ∆ is
subject to optimal selection for throughput maximization. Each CRI corresponds to the
successful transmission of all packet arrivals within an arrival interval of length∆. The length of
the CRI is determined by the number of users in the window ∆ and the algorithmic steps of the
collision resolution process, Figure 4.4. The placement of the ∆-size window on the arrival
27
access is determined asynchronously by the users. We will first describe the collision resolution
process induced by the algorithm. Then, we will explain the process which determines the
placement of the ∆-size window per CRI.
The algorithmic class contains algorithms whose collision resolution process can be
depicted by a stack with finite number of cells. Let us consider this algorithm in the class which
can be described by a K-cell stack. Then, in the implementation of the collision resolution
process, each user utilizes a counter whose values lie in the set of integers, [1,2,…K]. We denote
by rt the counter value of some user at time t. The K different possible values of the counter
place the user in one of the K cells of a K-cell stack. When his counter value is 1, the user
transmits; he withholds at K-1 different stages otherwise. When a CRI begins, all users in the ∆-
size window set their counters at 1; thus, they all transmit within the first slot of the CRI. If the
window contains at most one packet, the first slot of the CRI is a non-collision slot and the CRI
lasts one slot. If the window contains at least two packets, instead, the CRI starts with a collision
which is resolved within the duration of the CRI via the following rules:
The user transmits in slot t if and only if . A packet is successfully transmitted in t
if and only if and . The counter values transition in time as follows:
If and , then
If and , then
If - and , then,
From the above rules, it can be seen that a CRI starts with a collision slot ends with K
consecutive non-collision slots, an event which cannot occur at any other instant during the CRI.
Thus, the observation of K consecutive non-collision slots signals the certain end of a CRI to all
users in the system; it either signifies the end of a CRI that started with a collision or the end of a
sequence of K consecutive length-one CRIs. Therefore, a user who arrives in the system without
any knowledge of the channel feedback history can synchronize with the system upon the
observation of the first K-tuple of consecutive non-collision slots. This observation leads to the
asynchronous by the users generating of the size-∆ window placement on the arrival axis.
Specifically, if a CRI ends with slot t, the window of the next CRI is selected with its right most
28
edge K-1 slots to the left of slot t and it contains those packets whose updates fall in the interval
(t- K+1-∆ , t-K+1). The updates tk of a packet are generated as follows: Let t0 be the slot
within which a packet is generated. Then define t0 to be equal to t0. Starting with slot t0, the
corresponding user senses continuously the channel feedbacks. He does so passively, until he
observes the first K-tuple of consecutive NC slots, ending with slot t1.. If t0∈(t1 –K+1 - ∆, t1 –K+
1), the user participates in the CRI that starts with slot t1 + 1. Otherwise, he updates his arrival
instant to t1 = t0 + ∆ and waits passively until the end of the latter CRI, ending with slot t2. If t1 ∈
(t2–K+1-∆, t2 –K+ 1), the user participates in the CRI which starts with slot t2; otherwise, he
updates his arrival instant by ∆ again and repeats the above process. In general, if tnn≥1
denotes the sequence of consecutive CRI endings since the first K-tuple of consecutive NC slots,
the packet participates in the kth CRI if tk-1∈(tk –K+1-∆, tk –K+1) and tn∉(tn+1 –K+ 1 -∆, tn –K+1)
; for all n ≤ k-2.
2-cell Algorithm Case: The 2-cell case will be explained with steps below:
If at least two packets attempt transmission within the same slot, a collision occurs and
such an event is initially the only cause for faulty transmissions. A collision results in complete
loss of the information carried by the collided packets; thus, retransmission of such packets is
necessary. As we said before that the stack has endless capacity because we have infinite number
of users, which means that CRI does not have a specific ending unless the users are synchronized
with system from the beginning, “they know the history of the system”. What happen in the CRI is
as follows:
Table 2: 2-Cell algorithm
Case number Outcome of the slot Counter value What will happen
Number 1 Then, he is gone
Number 2
Number 3
Number 4 Then ,
29
Figure 4.5: The operation of the 2-cell algorithm (Imaginary Stack device)
From these rules it can be seen that a CRI that starts with a collision slot ends with two
consecutive non-collision slots. Furthermore, two consecutive NC slots cannot occur at any other
instant during a CRI, Figures 3.5 and 3.6. Thus, the observation of two consecutive NC slots
signals the end of such a CRI to all the users in the system.
Figure 4.6: The 2-cell algorithm (Imaginary Stack device & Arrival Time)
30
4.3.2. Underwater Signal Propagation
As mentioned above, radio and optical communications do not perform well in deep
underwater environments. Thus, acoustic communication is then widely chosen, due to the low
attenuation of sound in water. Typical frequencies associated with underwater acoustics are
between 10 Hz and 1 MHz. To compute the underwater delay, we need to find the sound speed
and the distance between the sensors. The sound speed in the seawater depends on the water
properties such as temperature, salinity and pressure (or depth). The speed of sound in the
seawater increases with the increase of any of these three parameters.
After selecting the underwater parameters such as temperature (T) in Celsius (from
Figure 4.2), salinity (S) in parts per thousand (from Figure 4.1) and depth (D) in meters, we may
calculate the sound speed and subsequently the underwater propagation delay via Equation 4.6
(page 38, Figure 4.3), based on the selected distance between the sensors (in our program, the
distance is between 100m). The propagation delay has a direct effect on the operation and the
induced performance characteristics of the deployed random access transmission algorithm. The
propagation delay must be considered in the operation of the algorithm: In particular, it should be
added to the delay of observed channel outcomes when propagation delay is absent. Thus, since
feedbacks are observed shifted in time by the amount of the propagation delay, the latter is added
immediately to received channel feedbacks, in our simulations. The propagation delay value
could be added either as a constant or as a random variable. In this work, the propagation delay
value is considered a constant, where its delay effect on the algorithmic operations may lead to
deadlocks in the limit. The equation below shows how the underwater expected delay is
simulated when the propagation delay is incorporated. The simulation results are shown in
Figure 4.29, 4.30, 4.31 and 4.32.
(4.7)
31
4.4. Energy-Efficient and Delay Decreasing Routing Protocol:
In order to perform underwater communication effectively via deployed M-DUWSNs,
we propose an energy-efficient and delay decreasing routing protocol. This means that, in
addition to the delay reduction induced by the k-cells algorithm, the deployment of the routing
protocol will further enhance performance: (1) Energy savings may be attained by minimizing
the number of data transmissions through the ENs and CHs. (2) Delay reduction may be attained
via shortest path routing across the CHs. (3) The lifetime extension of underwater sensor
networks is also accomplished by using the Layer by Layer replacement method.
In this section, the communication architecture of M-DUWSNs is recalled from Chapter
3, as shown in figure 4.6. This communication architecture is dictated by the network objectives:
(1) Gathering information continuously; (2) Monitoring and detecting objects effectively; (3)
Attaining energy-Efficiency and lifetime extension; (4) Guaranteeing reliable communication
links. We thus selected one of the communication architectures used in Chapter 3, as shown in
Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.7: The architecture of the M-DUWSNs
The ENs, CHs and BS perform the following functions: The ENs are grouped into
distinct clusters, where each cluster contains a single CH, where each EN collects local data and
transmits them to its local CH. Each CH collects the data sent by its local ENs and processes
them, using an operation determined by the network signal processing objectives. The CH then
processes the compounded processed data, utilizing an operation that is determined by the
network signal processing objectives, and transmits the outcome to selected neighboring CHs
32
and/or the BS. The CHs have processing capabilities, energy and life-spans that are much higher
than those of the ENs, where their life-spans and energy may still be limited. BS fuses data
transmitted to it by neighboring CHs, utilizing an operation that is determined by the network
signal processing objectives. The BS has practically unlimited life- span. All sensor nodes (ENs)
and cluster heads are distributed randomly underwater per unit-size region (Ocean Depth X
Spreading Length). Each EN and CH can move freely and are assumed to be unmanned robots.
Each mobile CH has a specific communication range that includes all ENs in the area of interest.
The CHs are organized in layers by ocean depth, where each CH can only communicate with the
CHs in the layer directly above its own. As an only exception, the CHs located in the highest
layer (those closest to the ocean service) can communicate with each other and the BS on the
service. The ENs and CHs are first randomly distributed and then reorganized in clusters and
layers as shown in Figure 4.8. Hence, each layer can handle as many ENs and CHs as required,
and the number of layers could be calculated based on the water depth and the distance between
the layers needed to accomplish reliable communication link.
All ENs and CHs are equipped with Voice Activity Detectors, to detect the presence of
various objects or any unusual activity in the area, and also possess underwater acoustic
transmitters and receivers. In our design, let assume that the water depth is about 100m, and that
the distance between the layers is 20m, as shown in Figure 3.5. The communication path to route
the information from ENs that are located at the bottom layer to the service layer where the BS is
located should be considered in the design, since it affects the overall transmission delay. The
communication rules pertinent to layering are included in Table 4.3.
Table 3: Communication rules between ENs, CHs, and BS
Ocean Service Where the BS is located to connect the M-DUWSN with the Wireless
Network
Layer #1 Is located on the service, where all CHs can communicate with each
other and the BS.
Layer#2
Layer#N
(1) Each EN can communicate only with its CH within the cluster
(2) Each CH can communicate only with its two nearest CHs in the
above and the lower layer. (2 lower layer +2 higher layer = 4
CHs)
33
Table 3: (Con’t.)
Shortest Path to
the Service
(1) Find the location of the BS (Center, Right, or Left Side)
(2) The path direction to transmit information is programmed based
on the position of the BS as shown in Figure 5
(3) As mentioned above, each CH can communicate only with its
two nearest CHs in the above and the lower layer. (2 lower
layer +2 higher layer = 4 CHs), but the CH from the above
layer is selected based on this direction. For example, if the
base station is located on the left side of the network, the
chosen CH is the one on the left side. See figure 4.
Figure 4.8: The shortest path direction depends on the BS’s location
To decrease the delay while simultaneously saving in transmission energy, it is important
to configure the path between the layers and maintain it consistently. Figures 4.8 and 4.9 show
how the path could be configured. Each CH communicates with the CH located on the left side on
the above layer if the assumed path is the Left Side Path (LFP), and communicates with the right
CH if the assumed path is the Right Side Path (RSP).
34
Figure 4.9: The shortest path direction toward the BS is chosen
To evaluate the performance of the routing protocol, we select two cases that include
distance, sound speed, temperature, salinity (hence, Equations 4.1-4.5). The two cases are
exhibited in Figure 4.10. In the first case, the shortest path toward the BS is 111.8304m (see
chapter 3 to know the parameters of the MDUWSN structure). In the second case, the random
path is 140.4330m.
Figure 4.10: Compare the delay between the two cases: (a) The shortest path direction toward the
BS is chosen (b) a random path toward the BS is chosen to forward the alarm
Figure 4.11 exhibits the possible improvement in delay reduction, when the shortest path
toward the BS is chosen, instead of the random path. The performance is approximately ~22.26%.
35
Figure 4.11: Compare the delay between the two cases: (a) The shortest path direction toward the
BS is chosen (b) a random path toward the BS is chosen to forward the alarm
Considering the extension of the network lifetime, in this section we introduce a simple
methodology for EN and CH replacement, when any of the latter expire. Our methodology is
described below, where ENs and CHs are organized in layers according to their closeness to the
BS and its service function:
1- Old ENs are replaced by new ENs at the higher service layer, while the old ENs move to
the layer below. The same process is repeated across consecutive layers, as exhibited by
Figure 4.12.
2- This step applies to CHs, where the replacement process across CHs is the same as that of
the ENs, as exhibited by Figure 4.13.
36
Figure 4.12: Update the M-DUWSN and Replace the expired ENs
Figure 4.13: Update the M-DUWSN and Replace the expired CHs
37
4.5. Numerical Evaluation to Compute the Expected Delay for both WSNs and M-
DUWSNs
The main goal of our simulations is to examine the delay for the deployed RAA in
two cases: the on-ground and the underwater wireless sensor networks. To compute the delay, we
need to first generate a number of random Poisson arrivals as shown in Figure 4.14. Then, those
arrivals are transmitted by our K-cell algorithm. The algorithm transmits arrivals occurred within
a window of size , while each new arrival first senses transmissions and outcomes, until the first
group of K consecutive non-collision slots occurs, at which point this arrival participates in the
next collision resolution interval (CRI).
Figure 4.14: Generating a random number of poisson arrivals
Figure 4.15 shows the results of applying the 2 cells algorithm. The first part of each
figure is Poisson random arrivals, the second part exhibits the process of sensing the two
consecutive NCs and updating the window, and the third part exhibits the transmitted arrivals.
Each time, the figures in the middle and right side are changed to show how many arrivals still
remain in the updated window and how many arrivals are transmitted successfully.
38
Figure 4.15: The system keeps sensing until two consecutive non-collision slots detected, and a
window of the next CRI is selected with its right most edge m-1 slot
39
Figure 4.15: The system keeps sensing until two consecutive non-collision slots detected, and a
window of the next CRI is selected with its right most edge m-1 slot
40
Figure 4.15: The system keeps sensing until two consecutive non-collision slots detected, and a window of the next CRI is selected with its right most edge m-1 slot
In this section, we compare the 3-cell algorithm with the 4-cell algorithm for both on-
ground and underwater M-DUWSNs, when all algorithms operate in environments imposing
admission delay constraints. We simulated the algorithms in the presence of the limit Poisson
user model for admission delay constraints equal to 100, 200 and 400 slots and we then computed
the average delays. Our results for the 3 and 4-cell algorithms, for both on-ground (WSNs) and
underwater networks (UWSNs) are exhibited in Figures 4.16 - 4.26. From these figures, we
41
observe that, for 100, 200, 400 slots admission delay constraints, the 3-cell algorithm does
somewhat better than the 4-cell in terms of expected delays of those packets that are successfully
transmitted (50,000 Slots and different rates from 0.1 to 0.43). Moreover, the expected delays for
underwater networks are higher than those for on-ground networks.
Figure 4.16: Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell algorithm Admission Delay 100 Slots
Figure 4.17: Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell algorithm Admission Delay 200 Slots
42
Figure 4.18: Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell Admission Delay 400 Slots
Figure 4.19: Expected Delays for 3-cell algorithm Admission Delay =100, 200 and 400 Slots
43
Figure 4.20: Expected Delays for 4-cell algorithm Admission Delay =100, 200 and 400 Slots
Figure 4.21: underwater sensor networks-Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell algorithm. Admission Delay =100 Slots
44
Figure 4.22:UWSNs- Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell algorithm Admission Delay =200 Slots
Figure 4.23:UWSNs- Expected Delays for 3-cell Vs 4-cell algorithm Admission Delay =400 Slots
45
Figure 4.24:UWSNs- Expected Delays for 3-cell algorithm Admission Delay = 100, 200 and 400 Slots
Figure 4.25:UWSNs- Expected Delays for 4-cell algorithm Admission Delay =100, 200 and 400 Slots
46
Figure 4.26: UWSNs Vs WSN- Expected Delays for 3-cell algorithm Admission Delay =100, 200 and 400 Slots
Figure 4.27: Expected Delays for 6-cell Vs 7-cell algorithm Admission Delay =200 Slots
We now compare the 6-cell algorithm with the 7-cell algorithm for higher number of
arrivals (20,000 to 80,000) for both WSNs and UWSNs, when all algorithms operate in
environments imposing admission delay constraints. The number of used slots is about 200,000
slots for different lambda rates (0.29 to 0.43). We simulated the algorithms in the presence of the
limit Poisson user model for admission delay constraints equal to 200 and 400 slots and then we
compute the expected delays. Our results for 6 and 7-cell algorithm for WSNs and UWSNs are
47
exhibited in figures 4.27 - 4.32. From these figures, we observe that 7-cell algorithm perform
much better than the 6-cell algorithm for both WSNs and UWSNs for both 200 and 400 slots
admission delay constraints. Also, the 7-cell and 6-Cell performs better when the admission delay
equals to 400 than 200 slots especially when we transmit high number of arrivals.
Figure 4.28: Expected Delays for 6-cell algorithm Admission Delay =400 Slots
Figure 4.29:UWSNs-Expected Delays for 6-cell Vs 7-cell algorithm Admission Delay =200 Slots
48
Figure 4.30:UWSNs-Expected Delays for 6-cell Vs 7-cell algorithm Admission Delay =400 Slots
Figure 4.31:UWSNs Vs WSN-Expected Delays for 6-cell Vs 7-cell algorithm Admission Delay =200 Slots
49
Figure 4.32:UWSNs Vs WSN-Expected Delays for 6-cell Vs 7-cell algorithm Admission Delay =400 In this part, a comparison between the 7-cell algorithm and the S-Aloha, [58], is
presented. The expected delay for 1000 transmitted arrivals is computed for the 7-cell algorithm
and compared to that induced by the S-Aloha protocol. The used lambda rate in this case is equal
to 0.4 and the admission delay constraint equals 400 slots. It is also assumed each slot is equal to
20 Micro Sec, [56-58], because most of the references use the per second rather than the per slot
time units. We thus converted the y-axis to (Sec) instead of (Slot) in our comparative evaluation.
Our results in Figure 4.33 show that the proposed K-cell model outperforms the S-Aloha protocol
[58].
50
Figure 4.33: Average Access Delay for 7-Cell (Admission Delay =400 and Lambda=0.4), ATL
S-ALOHA, and S-ALOHA protocols.
51
5: Conclusions
This thesis focuses on the impact of latency on Mobile Underwater Sensor Networks
(MUWSNs) operating in the underwater acoustic environment. The deployment of a novel
MUWSN that consists of mobile Elementary Nodes (ENs), a backbone network of Cluster-Heads
(CHs), and a Base Station (BS) has been proposed. We also provide an MUWSN node clustering
technique that attains high data rate and low energy consumption; the MUWSN utilizes the audio
signal emitted by the submarine’s engine to detect its presence.
During the implantations of the MUWSN, sensor localization is required. Thus, the
improvement of localization accuracy has been considered, while such accuracy could be
significantly affected by poor acoustic channel quality and node current-caused mobility. To
overcome problems such as: interference, power savings, data rate constraints and propagation
delay, we reorganized our network in clusters where each cluster has a CH and many ENs. In
general, the network design may be dictated by the objective of its application, in conjunction
with the constraints induced by the deployed transmission protocols and the environment (Power,
transmission rates, sensors’ life span,…etc.).
We presented a limited feedback sensing Random Access Algorithm (RAA), as the data
transmission protocol in each cluster. The algorithm utilizes binary (C-NC) feedback and a
slotted broadcast channel, while each sensor is required to sense the channel continuously from
the time it generates a packet to the time when this packet is successfully transmitted. We also
presented the analysis of the algorithm in the presence of the Poisson used model. We examined
the delays induced by the proposed RAA in two cases: when deployed on-ground; and when
deployed by underwater wireless sensor networks, where large propagation delays are inherent to
acoustic such networks. In both cases, we modeled the sensors’ limited life span by imposed
admission delay constraints in data transmissions. In each case, system evaluation was
represented by simulations, where such results were used to compare on-ground versus
underwater performance.
Finally, a performance comparison between the proposed algorithm and the S-Aloha
algorithm was presented. The comparison encompassed expected delays and rejection rates as
the performance metrics. The results showed that as the rate of the limit Poisson traffic and the
52
imposed limit on the admission delay increase, the S-Aloha-type protocol collapses, while the
introduced underwater protocol maintains high standards.
53
BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] Z. Jiang “Underwater Acoustic Networks “ , International journal of Intellgent Control and Systems, Vol. 13, NO. 3, Sep 2008, 152-161 [2] J. Yick, B. Mukherjee, and D. Ghosal “Wireless sensor network survey”, Department of
Computer Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, United States
[3] J. Partan, J. Kurose, and B. N. Levine, “A Survey of Practical Issues in Underwater Networks,
International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking”, Proc. of the 1st ACM
international workshop on Underwater networks, pp. 17 – 24, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Sept.,
2006.
[4] L. Berkhovskikh and Y. Lysanov, “Fundamentals of Ocean Acoustics”. New York: Springer,
1982.
[5] A. Quazi and W. Konrad, “Underwater acoustic communications,” IEEE Commun. Mag., pp.
24–29, Mar. 1982.
[6] R. J. Urick, “Principles of Underwater Sound”, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company, New York, NY, 1983.
[7] R. Coates, “Underwater Acoustic Systems”, New York: Wiley, 1989.
[8] J. A. Catipovic, “Performance Limitations in underwater acoustic
telemetry”, IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., 15(3):205-216, Jul. 1990.
[9] E. M. Sozer, M. Stojanovic, and J. G. Proakis. Undersea Acoustic Networks. IEEE Journal of
Oceanic Engineering, OE-25(1):72–83, January 2000.
[10] http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~jcui/UWSN_papers/UCONN_CSE_UbiNet-TR05-02.pdf
[11] S. Zhou and P. Willett, “Submarine Location Estimation Via a Network of Detection-Only
Sensors”. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 55, NO. 6, JUNE 2007
[12] P. Wang, C. Li, J. Zheng , “Distributed Minimum-Cost Clustering Protocol for Underwater
Sensor Networks (UWSNs)”. ICC 2007 proceedings.
[13] C. Wen-Yu, L. Jing-Biao “UUV Mobility Management for Underwater Acoustic Sensor
Networks”
[14] J. Cui, J. Kong, M. Gerla , S. Zhou “The Challenges of Building Scalable Mobile
Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks for Aquatic Applications”
[15] T. and H. Lin, “Research on Submarine Counter-detection Probability by Threat Surface
Ship Sonar”. IEEE.
[16] A. C. KELLER, “Submarine Detection by Sonar”. IEEE.
[17] A.T. Burrell and P. Papantoni-Kazakos, “Performance Monitoring in Sensor Networks”,
IEEE.
54
[18] Carp Fish Robot, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO9oseiCTdk.
[19] Recycled Robot Fish Teach Japanese Children About Sealife, http://inhabitat.com/recycled-
robot-fish-teach-japanese-children-about-sealife/
[20] Video: Mini fuel cell powering a robot fish, http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/03/16/video-
mini-fuel-cell-powering-a-robot-fish/
[21] Robotic fish consume less power by using magnets instead motors,
http://www.robaid.com/bionics/robotic-fish-consume-less-power-by-using-magnets-instead-
motors.htm
[22] Vinay K. Ingle and John G. Proakis, “Digital Signal Prosseing Using Matalb”.
[23] D. Kazakos and P. Papantoni-Kazakos, Detection and Estimation, Computer Science Press,
New York, NY, 1990.
[24] I. F. Akyildiz, W.Su, Y. Sankkarasubramaniam and E Cayirci, “Wireless Sensor Networks:
A Survey”, Computer Networks (Elsevier), vol. 38, no. 4, 2002, pp. 393-422.
[25] S. Bandyopadhyay and E.J. Coyle, “An Energy Efficient Hierarchical Clustering Algorithm
for Wireless Sensor Networks”, IEEE INFOCOM 2003.
[26] M. Bhardwaj and A.P. Chandrakasan, “Bounding the Lifetime of Sensor Networks via
Optimal Role Assignments”, in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, New York, Jun. 23-27, 2002, pp. 1587-
1596.
[27] D. Blough and S. Paolo, “Investigating Upper Bounds on Network Life-Time Extension for
Cell-Based Energy Conservation Techniques in Stationary Ad Hoc Networks”, in Proc. ACM
MobiCom, Atlanta, GA, Sep. 23-28, 2002, pp. 183-192.
[28] J.H. Chang and L. Tassiulas, “Routing for Maximum System Lifetime in Wireless Ad Hoc
Networks”, in Proc. 37th Annual Allerton Conference on Communications, Control and
Computing, Monticello, IL, Sep. 1999, vol. 1, pp. 22-31.
[29] J.H. Chang and L. Tassiulas, “Energy Conserving Routing in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”,
in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, Tel Aviv, Israel, Mar. 26-30, 2000, pp. 22-31.
[30] Y. T. Hou, Y. Shi and H.D. Sherali, “On Node Lifetime Problem for Energy-Constrained
Wireless Sensor Networks”, ACM/Springer Mobile Netw.Applicat., vol. 10, no. 6, Dec. 2005, pp.
865-878.
[31] Y.T. Hou, Y. Shi, J.H. Reed and K. Sohraby, “Flow Routing for Variable Bit Rate Source
Nodes in Energy-Constrained Wireless Sensor Networks”, in Proc. IEEE International
Conference on Communications, Seoul Korea, May 16-20, 2005, pp. 3057-3062.
[32] Y. T. Hou, Y. Shi and H.D. Sherali, “Rate Allocation and Network Lifetime Problems for
Wireless Sensor Networks”, IEEE Trans. Networking, vol. 16, no. 2, April 2008, pp. 321-334.
55
[33] P. Papantoni Kazakos and A.T. Burrell “The Implementation of Dynamic Rate Allocation in
Sensor Networks” Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 2010, Vol. 58, pp. 211-238.
[34] V. Rodoplu and T.H. Meng, “Minimum Energy Mobile Wireless Networks”, IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 17, no. 8, Aug. 1999, pp. 1333-1344.
[35] V. Rodoplu and M. Park, "An energy-efficient MAC protocol for underwater wireless
acoustic networks," in MTS/IEEE OCEANS, 2005.
[36] A. F. Harris, M. Stojanovic, and M. Zorzi, "Why underwater acoustic nodes should sleep
with one eye open: Idle-time power management in underwater sensor networks," in ACM
International Workshop on UnderWater Networks (WUWNet), 2006.
[37] A. F. Harris and M. Zorzi, "Energy-efficient routing protocl design considerations for
underwater networks," in IEEE Conference on Sensor; Mesh and Ad Hoc Communications and
Networks (SECON), 2007.
[38] Lanbo Liu, Shengli Zhou, and Jun-Hong Cui, “Prospects and Problems of Wireless
Communication for Underwater Sensor Networks”. Wiley WCWC Special Issue on Underwater
Sensor Networks.
[39] Milica Stojanovic, “Underwater Acoustic Communication”, For the Wiley Encyclopedia of
Electrical and Electronics Engineering. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University Boston.
[40] N. N. Ismail, L. A. Hussein, S. H.S.Ariffin, “AnalyzingThe Performance of Acoustic
Channel in Underwater Wireless Sensor Network(UWSN)”, IEEE 2010 Fourth Asia International
Conference on Mathematical/Analytical Modeling and Computer Simulation, Page(s): 550 – 555.
[41] Xianhui Che, Ian Wells, “A Static Multihop Underwater Wireless Sensor Network Using RF
Electromagnetic Communications” 29 IEEE International Conference on distributed computing
system
workshop, Swansea metropolitan university UK, 2009.
[42] Jun-Hong Cui, Jiejun Kong, Mario Gerla, Shengli Zhou, “Challenges: Building Scalable and
Distributed Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks (UWSNS) For Aquatic Applications” .2005.
[43] Dario Pompili, Tommaso Melodia, Ian F. Akyildiz, routing algorithm for delay-insensitive
and delay-sensitive application in underwater sensor networks. in Proc. of ACM Conference on
Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom), Los Angeles, CA, September 2006
[44] Mari Carmen Domingo, Rui Prior, Energy Analysis Of Routing Protocol For Underwater
Wireless Sensor Networks, 2007
[45] Ian F. Akyildiz, Dario Pompili, Tommaso Melodia, Challenges for Efficient Communication
in Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks.ACM Sigbed Review, Vol. 1, Number 2, July 2004
56
[46] Dario pompili, Tommaso Melodia, lan F,akyildiz, “ Deployment Analysis In Underwater
Acoustic Wireless Sensor Network “,International Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking ,2006.
[47] Paul C.Etter, Underwater Acoustic Modeling Principle, Techniques And Applications.
Elsevier Science Publishers, 1991.
[48] http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/salinity_depth.h tml
[49] http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/temp.html
[50] J.L. Massey, “Collision resolution algorithms and random access communications”, in
Multiuser Communication, G. Longo Ed, New York, Springer-Verlag.
[51] B.S. Tsybakov and V.A. Mikhailov, “Free synchronous packet access in a broadcast
channel with feedback”, Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 259-280, 1978.
[52] L. Georgiadis and P. Papantoni-Kazakos, “A 0.487 throughput limited sensing algorithm”,
IEEE Trans. Inf. Th., Vol. IT-33, No. 2, pp. 233-237, Mar. 1987.
[53] M. Paterakis and P. Papantoni-Kazakos, “A simple window random access algorithm with
advantageous properties”, IEEE Trans. Inf. Th., Vol. 35, pp. 1124-1130, Sept. 1989.
[54] J. I. Capetanakis, “Tree Algorithms for Packet Broadcast Channel”, IEEE Trans.
Information Theory, Vol. IT-25, pp. 505-515, Sept. 1979.
[55] M. Paterakis, L. Georgiadis and P. Papantoni-Kazakos, “On the relation between the finite
and the infinite population models for a class of RAAs”, IEEE Trans. Commun., Vol. COM-35,
pp. 1239-1250, Nov. 1987.
[56] Chatzimisios, P.; Boucouvalas, A.C.; Vitsas, V., “Packet delay analysis of IEEE 802.11
MAC protocol,” IET Journals, Volume: 39, Page(s): 1358 – 1359.
[57] Guolin Sun; Bo Hu, “Delay Analysis of IEEE 802.11 DCF with Back-off Suspension,”
Future Generation Communication and Networking (FGCN 2007),Volume: 1, Page(s): 148 –
151.
[58] Rivero-Angeles, M.E.; Lara-Rodriguez, D.; Cruz-Perez, F.A., “Access delay analysis of
adaptive traffic load - type protocols for S-ALOHA and CSMA in EDGE,” Wireless
Communications and Networking, 2003. IEEE, Volume: 3, Page(s): 1722 - 1727 vol.3