Advertisement

Wireless Networks

, Volume 25, Issue 8, pp 4541–4553 | Cite as

New scheme for underwater acoustically wireless transmission using direct sequence code division multiple access in MIMO systems

  • Rajiv Kapoor
  • Rashmi Gupta
  • Raghavendra Kumar
  • Le Hoang SonEmail author
  • Sudan Jha
Article

Abstract

This paper proposes a new technique based on Direct Sequence Code Division Multiple Access for underwater acoustically wireless transmission with excessive transmission rate. Environment of subsea is challenging for wireless communication because the medium in which waves are propagating is not air. In fact, it is propagated through fractions of water having different densities. Finding out various techniques for multipath access targeting the physical layer of Acoustic Sensor Networks is indeed necessary. The recent approaches have suggested that coded modulation techniques with exploited diversity are highly preferred in order to enhance the dependability of the acoustic link in different multipath channels. The proposed technique divides the channel into sub ones and transmits information via those sub channels. In variety-spectrum, a signal in a bandwidth is unfold within frequency domain and broad bandwidth. Experimental results show that Bit Error Rate (BER) of this method is better than that of channel equalization in the respective systems.

Keywords

Magnetic Induction Wireless communication Channel model Underwater wireless communication networks (UWCNs) Underwater acoustic communications CDMA Bit error rate (BER) 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Pompili, D., Melodia, T., & Akyildiz, I. F. (2009). A CDMA-based medium access control for underwater acoustic sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 8(4), 1899–1909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mulholland, J., & McStay, D. (2011). Wireless communication enhances subsea production monitoring. Offshore, 71(1), 76–77.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lanbo, L., Shengli, Z., & Jun-Hong, C. (2008). Prospects and problems of wireless communication for underwater sensor networks. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 8(8), 977–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang, X., Cui, J. H., Das, S., Gerla, M., & Chitre, M. (2016). Underwater Wireless Communications and Networks: Theory and Application: Part 2 [Guest Editorial]. IEEE Communications Magazine, 54(2), 30–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sun, Z., & Akyildiz, I. F. (2009). Underground wireless communication using magnetic induction. In IEEE international conference on communications, 2009. ICC’09 (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu, L., Wang, R., Guo, D., & Fan, X. (2016). Message dissemination for throughput optimization in storage-limited opportunistic underwater sensor networks. In 2016 13th annual IEEE international conference on sensing, communication, and networking (SECON) (pp. 1–9). IEEE.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sozer, E. M., Proakis, J. G., Stojanovic, R., Rice, J. A., Benson, A., & Hatch, M. (1999). Direct sequence spread spectrum based modem for under water acoustic communication and channel measurements. In OCEANS’99 MTS/IEEE. Riding the crest into the 21st century (Vol. 1, pp. 228–233). IEEE.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ziaeefard, S., Page, B. R., Pinar, A. J., & Mahmoudian, N. (2017). Effective turning motion control of internally actuated autonomous underwater vehicles. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 89, 1–15.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brady, D., & Preisig, J. C. (1998). Underwater acoustic communications. In H. V. Poor & G. W. Wornell (Eds.), Wireless communications: Signal Processing perspectives (Vol. 8, pp. 330–379). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singer, C., Nelson, J. K., & Kozat, S. S. (2009). Signal processing for underwater acoustic communications. IEEE Communications Magazine, 47(1), 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chitre, M., Shahabudeen, S., Freitag, L., & Stojanovic, M. (2008). Recent advances in underwater acoustic communications and networking. In OCEANS 2008 (Vol. 2008, pp. 1–10).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manjula, R. B., & Manvi, S. S. (2011). Issues in underwater acoustic sensor networks. International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, 3(1), 101.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kojima, T., & Nagashima, Y. (2016). An initial acquisition scheme for Walsh-Hadamard code division multiplexing. In 2016 international conference on advanced technologies for communications (ATC) (pp. 397–400).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tam, N. T., Hai, D. T., Son, L.H., & Le Vinh, T. (2018). Improving lifetime and network connections of 3D wireless sensor networks based on fuzzy clustering and particle swarm optimization. Wireless Networks.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-016-1412-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hai, D. T., Son, L. H., & Le Vinh, T. (2017). Novel fuzzy clustering scheme for 3D wireless sensor networks. Applied Soft Computing, 54, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jameel, F., Haider, M. A. A., & Butt, A. A. (2017). Performance analysis of VANETs under Rayleigh, Rician, Nakagami-m and Weibull fading. In International conference on communication, computing and digital systems (C-CODE) (pp. 127–132).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Son, L. H., & Thong, P. H. (2017). Soft computing methods for WiMax Network Planning on 3D Geographical Information Systems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 83(1), 159–179.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen, Y., Ji, F., Guan, Q., Wang, Y., Chen, F., & Yu, H. (2017). Adaptive RTO for handshaking-based MAC protocols in underwater acoustic networks. Future Generation Computer Systems.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.08.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hwang, S.-J., & Schniter, P. (2007). Efficient communication over highly spread underwater acoustic channels. International Conference on Mobile Computing and Net-working, Montreal, 9–14, 11–18.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang, R., Clement, B., Mansour, A., Li, M., & Wu, N. (2015). Modeling of a complex-shaped underwater vehicle for robust control scheme. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 80(3–4), 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iglesias, A. Song, J. Garcia-Frias, M. Badiey & G. R. Arce (2011). Image transmission over the underwater acoustic channel via compressive sensing. In 45th annual conference on information sciences and systems, Baltimore, 23–25 March 2011 (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tao, J., Zheng, Y. R., Xiao, C., Yang, T. C., & Yang, W. B. (2010). Channel equalization for single carrier MIMO underwater acoustic communications. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2010(1), 281769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jindal, H., Saxena, S., & Kasana, S. S. (2017). A sustainable multi-parametric sensors network topology for river water quality monitoring. Wireless Networks, 1–25.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cui, J. H., Kong, J., Gerla, M., & Zhou, S. (2006). The challenges of building mobile underwater wireless networks for aquatic applications. IEEE Network, 20(3), 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu, S., Zhang, Z., & Yu, W. (2017). A Space-time coding scheme with time and frequency comb-like chirp waveforms for MIMO-SAR. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 11(2), 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singer, A. C., Nelson, J. K., & Kozat, S. S. (2009). Signal processing for underwater acoustic communications. IEEE Communications Magazine, 47(1), 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Costa, D., Palmieri, G., Palpacelli, M. C., Panebianco, L., & Scaradozzi, D. (2017). Design of a bio-inspired autonomous underwater robot. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-017-0678-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Balanis, C. A. (2016). Antenna theory: Analysis and design. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Che, X., Wells, I., Dickers, G., Kear, P., & Gong, X. (2010). Re-evaluation of RF electromagnetic communication in underwater sensor networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 48(12), 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lanbo, L., Shengli, Z., & Jun-Hong, C. (2008). Prospects and problems of wireless communication for underwater sensor networks. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 8(8), 977–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Su, X., Liu, X., Lu, X., & Luo, C. (2016). A combination of Alamouti code and beamforming technologies via dual-polarized antenna array systems. International Workshop on Antenna Technology (iWAT), 2016 (pp. 119–122). IEEE.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang, Y., & Ding, F. (2016). Novel data filtering based parameter identification for multiple-input multiple-output systems using the auxiliary model. Automatica, 71, 308–313.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kapoor, R., Gupta, R., Son, L. H., Jha, S., & Kumar, R. (2018). Detection of power quality event using histogram of oriented gradients and support vector machine. Measurement, 120, 52–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Balanis, C. A. (2012). Advanced engineering electromagnetic. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Francois, R. E., & Garrison, G. R. (1982). Sound absorption based on ocean measurements. Part II: Boric acid contribution and equation for total absorption. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72(6), 1879–1890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mishra, A. Anand, S., Ashmita, G., Padma, N., Padhi, P.P. & Kumar, J.M. (2010). Non-linear distortion analysis and computation of BER in BPSK OFDM systems. In 2nd national conference on recent trends in communication, computation and signal processing. Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Warsi, S., Jindal, V., Kumar, S., Koli, D., Bagchi, A., & Ribeiro, V. J. (2016). Joint scheduling and routing using space–time graphs for TDM wireless mesh networks. Wireless Networks, 22(7), 2355–2367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Adjoudani, A., Beck, E. C., Burg, A. P., Djuknic, G. M., Gvoth, T. G., Haessig, D., et al. (2003). Prototype experience for MIMO BLAST over third-generation wireless system. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 21(3), 440–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Poor, H. V., & Tanda, M. (2002). Multiuser detection in flat fading non-Gaussian channels. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 50(11), 1769–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Singh, K., Singh, K., Son, L. H., & Aziz, A. (2018). Congestion control in wireless sensor networks by hybrid multi-objective optimization algorithm. Computer Networks, 138, 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hojo, K., Terada, Y., Yazawa, N., Watanabe, T., & Baba, T. (2016). Compact QPSK and PAM modulators with Si photonic crystal slow-light phase shifters. IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, 28(13), 1438–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jiang, Z. (2008). Underwater acoustic networks–issues and solutions. International Journal of Intelligent Control and Systems, 13(3), 152–161.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hai, D. T., Tam, N. T., Son, L. H., & Vinh, L. T. (2016). A novel energy-balanced unequal fuzzy clustering algorithm for 3D wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the seventh symposium on information and communication technology (pp. 180–186). ACM.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hai, D. T., Tam, N. T., Son, L. H., & Vinh, L. T. (2016). Experimental analyses of Terrain factors to performance of sensor placement optimization in 3D environments. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 8(6), 394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liu, Q., Chen, X., Liu, X., & Linge, N. (2016). CACA-UAN: A context-aware communication approach based on the underwater acoustic sensor network. In International conference on cloud computing and security (pp. 37–47). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Haci, H. (2017). Performance study of non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) with triangular successive interference cancellation. Wireless Networks.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-017-1464-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Li, X., Liu, J., Yao, Q., & Ma, J. (2017). Efficient and consistent key extraction based on received signal strength for vehicular ad hoc networks. In IEEE Access.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringDelhi Technological UniversityDelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringAIACT&RDelhiIndia
  3. 3.Computer Science and Engineering DepartmentLNCT CollegeBhopalIndia
  4. 4.Institute of Research and DevelopmentDuy Tan UniversityDanangVietnam
  5. 5.VNU University of ScienceVietnam National UniversityHanoiVietnam
  6. 6.School of Computer EngineeringKIIT UniversityBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations