The effect of different attenuation models on the performance of routing in shallow-water networks

Several models can be used to determine the attenuation incurred by sound waves as they travel under water. A trade-off between accuracy and complexity is observed in this respect: the most accurate results are typically yielded by some form of numerical solution to the sound propagation equations, but at the price of high complexity; conversely, simple link budget equations are typically valid only as a first-order approximation, but are much simpler to evaluate. When such different models are applied to network simulations, both the accuracy and the complexity of the chosen model can have a big impact on the simulation time and on the significance of the outcomes. In this paper, we present a comparison among different models of increasing computational complexity for simulating the transmission loss of underwater acoustic channels, when applied to the simulation of multi-hop underwater acoustic networks. All models have been integrated in the DESERT Underwater framework, which is based on the ns2/MIRACLE network simulator. Our results show that the model and its parameters have in fact a big impact on network simulation results in different network topologies, which is consistent with the findings reported by some other papers that recently appeared in the open literature. Our results also show that in some instances simple propagation models provide a useful approximation if their parameters are properly chosen.

[1]  Jürgen Schönwälder,et al.  AquaTools: An Underwater Acoustic Networking Simulation Toolkit , 2010 .

[2]  Michael Zuba,et al.  An advanced channel framework for improved Underwater Acoustic Network simulations , 2013, 2013 OCEANS - San Diego.

[3]  Michele Zorzi,et al.  The Throughput of Underwater Networks: Analysis and Validation using a Ray Tracing Simulator , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications.

[4]  Robert J. Urick,et al.  Principles of underwater sound , 1975 .

[5]  F. De Rango,et al.  Markovian approach to model Underwater Acoustic channel: Techniques comparison , 2008, MILCOM 2008 - 2008 IEEE Military Communications Conference.

[6]  R. Masiero,et al.  DESERT Underwater: An NS-Miracle-based framework to design, simulate, emulate and realize test-beds for underwater network protocols , 2012, 2012 Oceans - Yeosu.

[7]  P. H. Rogers Onboard Prediction of Propagation Loss in Shallow Water , 1981 .

[8]  Milica Stojanovic,et al.  On the relationship between capacity and distance in an underwater acoustic communication channel , 2006, Underwater Networks.

[9]  Michele Zorzi,et al.  On modeling JANUS packet errors over a shallow water acoustic channel using Markov and hidden Markov models , 2010, 2010 - MILCOM 2010 MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE.

[10]  Haiyun Luo,et al.  Zero-configuration indoor localization over IEEE 802.11 wireless infrastructure , 2010, Wirel. Networks.

[11]  Michele Zorzi,et al.  World ocean simulation system (WOSS): a simulation tool for underwater networks with realistic propagation modeling , 2009, WUWNet.

[12]  Paul A. van Walree,et al.  Validation of Replay-Based Underwater Acoustic Communication Channel Simulation , 2013, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering.

[13]  Michele Zorzi,et al.  Impact of Time-Varying Underwater Acoustic Channels on the Performance of Routing Protocols , 2013, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering.

[14]  Rudolf Bannasch,et al.  Sweep-spread carrier for underwater communication over acoustic channels with strong multipath propagation. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Sumit Roy,et al.  System Design Considerations for Undersea Networks: Link and Multiple Access Protocols , 2008, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[16]  Angelo Coluccia,et al.  Reduced-Bias ML-Based Estimators with Low Complexity for Self-Calibrating RSS Ranging , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications.