Recent Advances and Future Directions on Underwater Wireless Communications

  • Mohammad Furqan Ali
  • Dushantha Nalin K. JayakodyEmail author
  • Yury Alexandrovich Chursin
  • Soféine Affes
  • Sonkin Dmitry
Original Paper


More than 75% of the Earth surface is covered by water in the form of oceans. The oceans are unexplored and very far-fetched to investigate due to distinct phenomenal activities in the underwater environment. Underwater wireless communication (UWC) plays a significant role in observation of marine life, water pollution, oil and gas rig exploration, surveillance of natural disasters, naval tactical operations for coastal securities and to observe the changes in the underwater environment. In this regard, the widespread adoption of UWC has become a vital field of study to envisage various military and commercial applications that have been growing interest to explore the underwater environment for numerous applications. Acoustic, Optical and RF wireless carriers have been chosen to be used for data transmission in an underwater environment. The internet of underwater things (IoUT) and next-generation (5G) networks have a great impact on UWC as they support the improvement of the data rate, connectivity, and energy efficiency. In addition to the potential emerging UWC techniques, assisted by 5G network and improve existing work is also focusing in this study. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of existing UWC techniques, with possible future directions and recommendations to enable the next generation wireless networking systems in the underwater environment. The current project schemes, applications and deployment of latest amended UWC techniques are also discussed. The main initiatives and contributions of current wireless communication schemes in underwater for improving quality of service and quality of energy of the system over long distances are also mentioned.



This work was funded, in part, by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Grant No. #2.3649.2017/4.6.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Loo J, Mauri JL, Ortiz JH (2016) Mobile ad hoc networks: current status and future trends. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zeng Z, Fu S, Zhang H, Dong Y, Cheng J (2017) A survey of underwater optical wireless communications. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 19(1):204–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khalighi MA, Uysal M (2014) Survey on free space optical communication: a communication theory perspective. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 16(4):2231–2258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vaccaro RJ (1998) The past, present, and the future of underwater acoustic signal processing. IEEE Signal Process Mag 15(4):21–51MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saeed N, Celik A, Al-Naffouri TY, Alouini M-S (2019) Underwater optical wireless communications, networking, and localization: a survey. Ad Hoc Netw, 101935Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rhodes M (2007) Electromagnetic propagation in sea water and its value in military systems. In: SEAS DTC technical conference, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Al-Shamma’a AI, Shaw A, Saman S (2004) Propagation of electromagnetic waves at mhz frequencies through seawater. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 52(11):2843–2849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-Kinani A, Wang C-X, Zhou L, Zhang W (2018) Optical wireless communication channel measurements and models. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 20:1939–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uysal M, Capsoni C, Ghassemlooy Z, Boucouvalas A, Udvary E (2016) Optical wireless communications: an emerging technology. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodwin FE (1970) A review of operational laser communication systems. Proc IEEE 58(10):1746–1752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lanbo L, Shengli Z, Jun-Hong C (2008) Prospects and problems of wireless communication for underwater sensor networks. Wirel Commun Mobile Comput 8(8):977–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lurton X (2002) An introduction to underwater acoustics: principles and applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lanzagorta M (2012) Underwater communications. Synth Lect Commun 5(2):1–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gussen C, Diniz P, Campos M, Martins WA, Costa FM, Gois JN (2016) A survey of underwater wireless communication technologies. J Commun Inf Sys 31(1):242–255Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaushal H, Kaddoum G (2016) Underwater optical wireless communication. IEEE Access 4:1518–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Akyildiz IF, Pompili D, Melodia T (2005) Underwater acoustic sensor networks: research challenges. Ad hoc Netw 3(3):257–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith RC, Baker KS (1981) Optical properties of the clearest natural waters (200–800 nm). Appl Opt 20(2):177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gaurav Mishra JK (March 2018) A survey of underwater communication, 2018, p. white paperGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhu Z, Guan W, Liu L, Li S, Kong S, Yan Y (2014) A multi-hop localization algorithm in underwater wireless sensor networks. In: Sixth International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing (WCSP). IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Akyildiz IF, Pompili D, Melodia T (2004) Challenges for efficient communication in underwater acoustic sensor networks. ACM Sigbed Rev 1(2):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zoksimovski A, Sexton D, Stojanovic M, Rappaport C (2015) Underwater electromagnetic communications using conduction-channel characterization. Ad Hoc Netw 34:42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chitre M, Shahabudeen S, Freitag L, Stojanovic M (2008) Recent advances in underwater acoustic communications & networking. In: OCEANS 2008. IEEE, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnson LJ, Jasman F, Green RJ, Leeson MS (2014) Recent advances in underwater optical wireless communications. Underw Technol 32(3):167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kumar P, Trivedi VK, Kumar P (2015) Recent trends in multicarrier underwater acoustic communications. In: Underwater technology (UT), 2015 IEEE. IEEE, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jiang S (2018) On securing underwater acoustic networks: a survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 21:729–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sandeep D, Kumar V (2017) Review on clustering, coverage and connectivity in underwater wireless sensor networks: a communication techniques perspective. IEEE Access 5:11 176–11 199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Akyildiz IF, Su W, Sankarasubramaniam Y, Cayirci E (2002) Wireless sensor networks: a survey. Comput Netw 38(4):393–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Domingo MC (2012) An overview of the internet of underwater things. J Netw Comput Appl 35(6):1879–1890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Palmeiro A, Martin M, Crowther I, Rhodes M (2011) Underwater radio frequency communications. In: OCEANS 2011 IEEE-Spain. IEEE, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Al-Aboosi YY, Ahmed MS, Shah NSM, Khamis NHH (2006) Study of absorption loss effects on acoustic wave propagation in shallow water using different empirical models. J Eng Appl Sci 12(22):6474–6478Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huang J, Sun J, He C, Shen X, Zhang Q (2005) High-speed underwater acoustic communication based on ofdm. In: IEEE international symposium on microwave, antenna, propagation and EMC technologies for wireless communications, vol 2. IEEE, pp 1135–1138Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Garcia M, Sendra S, Atenas M, Lloret J (2011) Underwater wireless ad-hoc networks: a survey. Mobile ad hoc networks: current status and future trends, pp. 379–413. Available:
  33. 33.
    West Lothian U (2007) Electromagnetic propagation in sea water and its value in military systems. In: SEAS DTC Technical Conference, pp. 1–6Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaur N, Singh P, Kaur P (2016) Under water environment: a brief of explored work and future scope. Int J Comput Appl 0975:8887Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gabriel C, Khalighi M-A, Bourennane S, Léon P, Rigaud V (2013) Monte-carlo-based channel characterization for underwater optical communication systems. J Opt Commun Netw 5(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cochenour BM, Mullen LJ, Laux AE (2008) Characterization of the beam-spread function for underwater wireless optical communications links. IEEE J Ocean Eng 33(4):513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Apel JR (1987) Principles of ocean physics, vol 38. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    The Sciencing Site (2018) Four biggest differences between the ocean fresh water. Accessed 25 Feb 2018
  39. 39.
    Hanson F, Radic S (2008) High bandwidth underwater optical communication. Appl Opt 47(2):277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Johnson L, Green R, Leeson M (2013) A survey of channel models for underwater optical wireless communication. In: 2013 2nd International Workshop on optical wireless communications (IWOW). IEEE, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Under world project (2016) The Under World Project. Available: Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  42. 42.
    Under water acoustic network project (2011) [Online]. Available:
  43. 43.
    Smart and networking underwater robots in cooperation meshes (swarms) project (2018) [online]. Available:
  44. 44.
    Broadband wireless networking lab, underwaer communication project (2008) [Online]. Available:
  45. 45.
    Building the internet of underwater things, underwater communication project scheme (2013) [Online]. Available:
  46. 46.
    Wsense underwater node deployment, underwater sensor nodes project (2018) [Online]. Available:
  47. 47.
    Distributed, efficient, ubiquitous and secure data delivery using autonomous underwater vehicles project scheme (2017) [Online]. Available:
  48. 48.
    S. system (2018) Stress wave assisted communications in subsea environments, p. white paperGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Underwater communications (2012) The SHOAL project. Accessed 30 Oct 2018
  50. 50.
    Belov LA, Smolskiy SM, Kochemasov VN (2012) Handbook of RF, microwave, and millimeter-wave components. Artech house, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chen Y, Pan W-y, Peng H-y, Zhang H-q (2010) “The elf/vlf field at the depth of submarine excited by satellite electropult. In: 2010 9th international symposium on antennas propagation and EM theory (ISAPE). IEEE, pp 505–508Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dowden RL, Holzworth RH, Rodger CJ, Lichtenberger J, Thomson NR, Jacobson AR, Lay E, Brundell JB, Lyons TJ, Kawasaki Z et al (2008) World-wide lightning location using vlf propagation in the earth-ionosphere waveguide. IEEE Antennas Propag Mag 50(5):40–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Che X, Wells I, Dickers G, Kear P, Gong X (2010) Re-evaluation of rf electromagnetic communication in underwater sensor networks. IEEE Commun Mag 48(12):143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Christian, Electromagnetic spectrum (2015) [Online]. Available: Accessed 10 Sept 2018
  55. 55.
    U. S. Navy (2001) Extremely low frequency transmitter site clam lake, wisconsin, White Page, Navy Fact FileGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shaneyfelt T, Joordens MA, Nagothu K, Jamshidi M (2008) Rf communication between surface and underwater robotic swarms. In: Automation congress, 2008. WAC 2008. World. IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dautta M, Hasan MI (2017) “Underwater vehicle communication using electromagnetic fields in shallow seas. In: International conference on electrical, computer and communication engineering (ECCE). IEEE, pp 38–43Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yunus F, Ariffin SH, Zahedi Y (2010) A survey of existing medium access control (MAC) for underwater wireless sensor network (UWSN). In: 2010 Fourth Asia international conference onmathematical/analytical modelling and computer simulation (AMS). IEEE, pp 544–549Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cossu G, Corsini R, Khalid A, Balestrino S, Coppelli A, Caiti A, Ciaramella E (2013) Experimental demonstration of high speed underwater visible light communications. In: 2013 2nd international workshop on optical wireless communications (IWOW) . IEEE, pp 11–15Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wang C, Yu H-Y, Zhu Y-J (2016) A long distance underwater visible light communication system with single photon avalanche diode. IEEE Photon J 8(5):1–11Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Darlis AR, Cahyadi WA, Darlis D, Chung YH (2016) Underwater visible light communication using maritime channel. In: Proceedings of Conference of Korea Institute Signal Processing Systems KISPS), pp 1–3Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Grobe L, Paraskevopoulos A, Hilt J, Schulz D, Lassak F, Hartlieb F, Kottke C, Jungnickel V, Langer K-D (2013) High-speed visible light communication systems. IEEECcommun Mag 51(12):60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Anguita D, Brizzolara D, Parodi G (2010) Prospects and problems of optical diffuse wireless communication for underwater wireless sensor networks. In: Wireless sensor networks: application-centric design. InTechGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Miramirkhani F, Uysal M (2018) Visible light communication channel modeling for underwater environments with blocking and shadowing. IEEE Access 6:1082–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zhang H, Dong Y (2015) Link misalignment for underwater wireless optical communications. In: Advances in wireless and optical communications (RTUWO), 2015. IEEE, pp 215–218Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Simpson JA et al (2008) A 1 mbps underwater communications system using leds and photodiodes with signal processing capability [Online]. Available:
  67. 67.
    Haltrin VI (1999) Chlorophyll-based model of seawater optical properties. Appl Opt 38(33):6826–6832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Simpson JA, Hughes BL, Muth JF (2012) Smart transmitters and receivers for underwater free-space optical communication. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 30(5):964–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bajwa N, Sharma V (2014) Smart transmitters and receivers for underwater free-space optical communication–a review. In: International conference on communications, computing & systemsGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Brundage H (2010) Designing a wireless underwater optical communication system. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Jensen FB, Kuperman WA, Porter MB, Schmidt H (2011) Computational ocean acoustics. Springer, BerlinzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Etter PC (2018) Underwater acoustic modeling and simulation. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Stojanovic M (2007) On the relationship between capacity and distance in an underwater acoustic communication channel. ACM SIGMOBILE Mob Comput Commun Rev 11(4):34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Gkikopouli A, Nikolakopoulos G, Manesis S (2012) A survey on underwater wireless sensor networks and applications. In: 2012 20th Mediterranean Conference on control & automation (MED) . IEEE, pp 1147–1154Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ainslie MA, McColm JG (1998) A simplified formula for viscous and chemical absorption in sea water. J Acoust Soc Am 103(3):1671–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Domingo MC (2008) Overview of channel models for underwater wireless communication networks. Phys Commun 1(3):163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Zhou S, Wang Z (2014) OFDM for underwater acoustic communications. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Brekhovskikh LM, Lysanov YP, Lysanov JP (2003) Fundamentals of ocean acoustics. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Partan J, Kurose J, Levine BN (2007) A survey of practical issues in underwater networks. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review 11(4):23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Zakharov YV, Li J (2016) Sliding window adaptive filter with diagonal loading for estimation of sparse uwa channels. In: OCEANS 2016-Shanghai. IEEE, pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Abdalkarim Tahir F (2015) Open ocean underwater wireless optical communication: chlorophyll and depth dependent variation in attenuation. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Dickey T, Lewis M, Chang G (2006) Optical oceanography: recent advances and future directions using global remote sensing and in situ observations. Rev Geophys 44(1):1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Stojanovic M, Preisig J (2009) Underwater acoustic communication channels: propagation models and statistical characterization. IEEE Commun Mag 47(1):84–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Chitre M, Shahabudeen S, Stojanovic M (2008) Underwater acoustic communications and networking: Recent advances and future challenges. Mar Technol Soc J 42(1):103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Amini P, Chen R-R, Farhang-Boroujeny B (2015) Filterbank multicarrier communications for underwater acoustic channels. IEEE J Ocean Eng 40(1):115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Wells I, Davies A, Che X, Kear P, Dickers G, Gong X, Rhodes M (2009) Node pattern simulation of an undersea sensor network using rf electromagnetic communications. In: International conference on ultra modern telecommunications & workshops, 2009 (ICUMT’09). IEEE, pp 1–4 (2009)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Che X, Wells I, Kear P, Dickers G, Gong X, Rhodes M (2009) A static multi-hop underwater wireless sensor network using. In: 2009 29th IEEE international conference on distributed computing systems workshops. IEEE, pp 460–463Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Guo Z, Li Z, Hong F (2009) USS-TDMA: self-stabilizing TDMA algorithm for underwater wireless sensor network. In: International conference on computer engineering and technology, 2009 (ICCET’09) , vol. 1. IEEE, pp 578–582Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Han G, Jiang J, Shu L, Xu Y, Wang F (2012) Localization algorithms of underwater wireless sensor networks: a survey. Sensors 12(2):2026–2061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kao C-C, Lin Y-S, Wu G-D, Huang C-J (2017) A comprehensive study on the internet of underwater things: applications, challenges, and channel models. Sensors 17(7):1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Davis A, Chang H (2012) Underwater wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE oceans, pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Freitag L, Stojanovic M, Grund M, Singh S (2002) Acoustic communications for regional undersea observatories. In: Proceedings of oceanology international, pp 5–8Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Sun Y (2013) The internet underwater: an IP protocol stack for commercial undersea modems. State University of New York at BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Agiwal M, Roy A, Saxena N (2016) Next generation 5g wireless networks: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 18(3):1617–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    CISCO (March 2017) Global mobile data traffic forecast update, 2016–2021, p white paperGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Pirinen P (2014) A brief overview of 5g research activities. In: 1st international conference on 5G for ubiquitous connectivity (5GU), 2014. IEEE, pp 17–22Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Stallings W (2007) Data and computer communications. Pearson Education India, New DelhizbMATHGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wu J, Ma X, Qi X, Babar Z, Zheng W (2017) Influence of pulse shaping filters on papr performance of underwater 5g communication system technique: GFDM. In: Wireless communications and mobile computing, vol 2017Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Akyildiz IF, Pompili D, Melodia T (2006) State-of-the-art in protocol research for underwater acoustic sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Underwater networks. ACM, pp. 7–16Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Aminjavaheri A, Farhang-Boroujeny B (2015) UWA massive mimo communications. In: OCEANS’15 MTS/IEEE Washington. IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Li B, Huang J, Zhou S, Ball K, Stojanovic M, Freitag L, Willett P (2009) Mimo-ofdm for high-rate underwater acoustic communications. IEEE J Ocean Eng 34(4):634–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Jinqiu W, Gang Q, Pengbin K (2018) Emerging 5g multicarrier chaotic sequence spread spectrum technology for underwater acoustic communication. Complexity 2018Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Lv Z, Zhang J, Jin J, Li Q, Liu L, Zhang P, Gao B (2018) Underwater acoustic communication quality evaluation model based on USV. Shock Vib 8:52–423Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Giles JW, Bankman IN (2005) Underwater optical communications systems. part 2: basic design considerations. In: Military communications conference, 2005 (MILCOM 2005). IEEE, pp 1700–1705Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Energy harvesting in underwater acoustic networks, p. white paper, 2012Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Perera TDP, Jayakody DNK, Sharma SK, Chatzinotas S, Li J (2017) Simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (swipt): recent advances and future challenges. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 20(1):264–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Chen X, Ng DWK, Chen H-H (2016) Secrecy wireless information and power transfer: challenges and opportunities. IEEE Wirel Commun 23(2):54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Yoon I-J (2015) Wireless power transfer in the radiating near-field region. In: Radio science meeting (joint with ap-s symposium), 2015 USNC-URSI. IEEE, pp 344–344Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Srujana BS, Mathews P, Harigovindan V et al (2015) Multi-source energy harvesting system for underwater wireless sensor networks. Proc Comput Sci 46:1041–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Porcarelli D, Brunelli D, Magno M, Benini L (2012) A multi-harvester architecture with hybrid storage devices and smart capabilities for low power systems. In: 2012 international symposium on power electronics, electrical drives, automation and motion (SPEEDAM), vol. 946, no. 951. IEEE, pp 20–22Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Saeed N, Celik A, Al-Naffouri T, Alouini M-S (2018) Energy harvesting hybrid acoustic-optical underwater wireless sensor networks localization. Sensors 18(1):51Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Rezaei HF, Kruger A, Just C (2012) “An energy harvesting scheme for underwater sensor applications. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on electro/information technology (EIT). IEEE, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Ding W, Song B, Mao Z, Wang K (2015) Experimental investigation on an ocean kinetic energy harvester for underwater gliders. In: 2015 IEEE energy conversion congress and exposition (ECCE). IEEE, pp 1035–1038Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Zhao X, Pompili D (2015) AMMCA: acoustic massive MIMO with carrier aggregation to boost the underwater communication data rate. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on underwater networks & systems. ACM, p 5Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Lawal B, Ali SSA, Awang AB (2016) Massive mimo systems for underwater acoustic communication. In: IEEE international conference on Underwater system technology: theory and applications (USYS). IEEE, pp 159–164Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Gesbert D, Kountouris M, Heath RW, Chae C-B, Salzer T (2007) From single user to multiuser communications: shifting the mimo paradigm. IEEE Signal Process Mag 24(5):36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Mehmood Y, Afzal W, Ahmad F, Younas U, Rashid I, Mehmood I (2013) Large scaled multi-user MIMO system so called massive mimo systems for future wireless communication networks. In: 2013 19th international conference on automation and computing (ICAC). IEEE, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Cheon J, Cho H-S (2017) Power allocation scheme for non-orthogonal multiple access in underwater acoustic communications. Sensors 17(11):2465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Wan D, Wen M, Ji F, Yu H, Chen F (2018) Non-orthogonal multiple access for cooperative communications: challenges, opportunities, and trends. IEEE Wirel Commun 25(2):109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Geldard C, Thompson J, Popoola WO (2018) A study of non-orthogonal multiple access in underwater visible light communication systems. In: 2018 IEEE 87th vehicular technology conference (VTC Spring). IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Wang B, Dai L, Gao X, Hanzo L (2017) Beamspace mimo-noma for millimeter-wave communications using lens antenna arrays. In: 2017 IEEE 86th vehicular technology conference (VTC-Fall). IEEE, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Pillai AA, Mathew NM (2018) Flexible transmission using nonorthogonal multiple access based underwater optical communication. Int J Innov Res Sci Tech 4(11):175–179Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Hamza AS, Deogun JS, Alexander DR (2018) Classification framework for free space optical communication links and systems. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 21:1346–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Jamali MV, Nabavi P, Salehi JA (2018) Mimo underwater visible light communications: comprehensive channel study, performance analysis, and multiple-symbol detection. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 67:8223–8237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Kumar MR, Sarvagya M (2016) Review on enhanced data rate receiver design using efficient modulation techniques for underwater acoustic communication. In: 2016 international conference on IEEE advanced communication control and computing technologies (ICACCCT), pp 313–317Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Palou G, Stojanovic M (2009) Underwater acoustic mimo ofdm: an experimental analysis. In: OCEANS 2009, MTS/IEEE Biloxi-marine technology for our future: global and local challenges. IEEE, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Zhang Y, Xiao S, Liu L, Sun D (2016) “Analysis and estimation of the underwater acoustic millimeter-wave communication channel. In: Ocean acoustics (COA), 2016 IEEE/OES China. IEEE, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Leeson M, Higgins M (2018) “Optical wireless and millimeter waves for 5g access networks. In: The fifth generation (5G) of wireless communication. IntechOpenGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Torkildson E, Ananthasubramaniam B, Madhow U, Rodwell M (2006) Millimeter-wave MIMO: wireless links at optical speeds. In: Proceedings of 44th allerton conference on communication, control and computing, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Niu Y, Li Y, Jin D, Su L, Vasilakos AV (2015) A survey of millimeter wave communications (mmwave) for 5g: opportunities and challenges. Wireless Netw 21(8):2657–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Yang J, Sobelman GE (2010) Sparse lms with segment zero attractors for adaptive estimation of sparse signals. In: 2010 IEEE Asia Pacific conference on circuits and systems (APCCAS). IEEE, pp 422–425Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Su G, Jin J, Gu Y, Wang J (2012) Performance analysis of \(l\_0\) norm constraint least mean square algorithm. IEEE Trans Signal Process 60(5):2223–2235MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Rajiv R (2017) Applications of millimeter waves and future. [Online]. Available:
  134. 134.
    DeMartino C (2017) Millimeter Waves are millimeter waves the wave of the future? [Online].
  135. 135.
    Xu M, Liu L (2016) Sender-receiver role-based energy-aware scheduling for internet of underwater things. IEEE Trans Emerg Top Comput 7(2):324–336MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Waldmeyer M, Tan H-P, Seah WK (2011) “Multi-stage auv-aided localization for underwater wireless sensor networks. In: 2011 IEEE workshops of international conference on IEEE advanced information networking and applications (WAINA), pp 908–913Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Khan A, Jenkins L (2008) Undersea wireless sensor network for ocean pollution prevention. In: 3rd international conference on communication systems software and middleware and workshops, 2008 (COMSWARE 2008). IEEE, pp 2–8Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Berlian MH, Sahputra TER, Ardi BJW, Dzatmika LW, Besari ARA, Sudibyo RW, Sukaridhoto S (2016) Design and implementation of smart environment monitoring and analytics in real-time system framework based on internet of underwater things and big data. In: 2016 international electronics symposium (IES). IEEE, pp 403–408Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Millman (2017) The internet of things: the internet of things could help us live underwater [Online]. Available:
  140. 140.
    Internet of underwater things (2017) The internet of underwater things promises to revolutionize our interaction with the submarine environment. [Online]. Available:

Copyright information

© CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Furqan Ali
    • 1
  • Dushantha Nalin K. Jayakody
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yury Alexandrovich Chursin
    • 1
  • Soféine Affes
    • 3
  • Sonkin Dmitry
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and RoboticsNational Research Tomsk Polytechnic UniversityTomskRussia
  2. 2.Faculty of EngineeringSri Lanka Technological CampusPadukkaSri Lanka
  3. 3.INRS-EMTMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations