Comparative Analysis of Underwater Wireless Optical Communication System

Comparative analysis of underwater wireless optical
communication system
Faisal Zeeshan,* Ajay Yadav, and Rahul Mukherjee

Bennett University, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering,
Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
Abstract. The performance of an underwater wireless optical communication (UWOC) system

is affected by many factors, such as channel conditions, modulation and detection techniques,
type of optical source, etc. The UWOC system performance was investigated in the presence
of weak and strong turbulence. Pure sea was the water type used for the performance analysis.
Binary phase shift keying, quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16-quadrature amplitude modu-
lation, and non-return to zero-on–off keying were used for comparison. Further, a continuous
wave laser was used as the optical source, and photodetectors are at the receiver. The performance
of the UWOC system was analyzed in terms of the bit error rate (BER). The BER performance
was evaluated using the log-normal probability density function (PDF) in weak turbulence and the
gamma-gamma PDF in strong turbulence. In all modulation techniques, QPSK had the best BER
performance. The BER was reduced further using avalanche photodiode (APD) as the photo-
detector instead of positive-intrinsic-negative diode for the same transmitter power and channel
conditions. In weak turbulence, a BER of 10−8 was achieved at a transmitter power of 12.5 dBm
using the QPSK modulation technique and APD as the photodetector. For the same conditions, a
BER of 9 × 10−7 was achieved in strong turbulence. The multiplication gain, dark current, and
carrier ionisation ratio of the photodetector were optimized for better BER performance in the
UWOC system. © 2022 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) [DOI: 10.1117/1.OE
.61.3.036113]
Keywords: underwater wireless optical communication; quadrature phase shift keying; binary
phase shift keying; 16-quadrature amplitude modulation; non-return to zero-on–off keying;
bit error rate; avalanche photodiode; positive-intrinsic-negative.
Paper 20211021 received Sep. 11, 2021; accepted for publication Feb. 28, 2022; published
online Mar. 31, 2022.
1 Introduction
Underwater wireless optical communication (UWOC) can be a better alternative for underwater
communication as compared with the conventional methods, such as acoustics communication,
radio frequency (RF) communication, and fiber optics communication. In optical communica-
tion, carrier frequency is in the range of 1012 to 1015 Hz1 and increases the bandwidth and data
rate. A high data rate (few Gbps) is achieved in UWOC compared with the traditional acoustic
communication (few Kbps). Moreover, complex antenna structures are not required in UWOC
compared with RF communication. The maneuverability in UWOC gives it an advantage over
wired fiber optics communication. UWOC offers various advantages over the conventional
modes of communication in terms of high bandwidth, low latency, high data rate, low imple-
mentation cost, and high security. Table 1 shows a comparison of different underwater wireless
communication technologies.2–4 Some of the important applications of UWOC include ship-to-
ship communication, communication between scuba divers, weather monitoring over oceans,
oceanic exploration, offshore oil monitoring, etc.
The block diagram of a UWOC system is shown in Fig. 1. Here, the source generates
the information signal to be transmitted. The message signal is modulated by the Mach–
Zehnder interferometer (MZI) modulator. Further, the modulated signal act as an input to the
*Address all correspondnece to Faisal Zeeshan, faisalzshn8@gmail.com
0091-3286/2022/$28.00 © 2022 SPIE
Optical Engineering 036113-1 March 2022 • Vol. 61(3)
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Nov 2022

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
Zeeshan, Yadav and Mukherjee: Comparative analysis of underwater wireless optical communication system
Table 1 Comparison of different underwater wireless communication technologies.
Parameters Acoustic RF Optical
Attenuation 0.1 to 4 dB/Km 3.5 to 5 dB/Km 0.39 dB/m (ocean)
11 dB/m (turbid)
Latency High Moderate Low
Bandwidth 1 to 100 KHz 3 to 30 MHz 10 to 150 MHz
Speed 1500 m/s 2.225 × 108 m∕s 2.225 × 108 m∕s
Range Up to Kms Up to 10 m 10 to 100 m
Data rate Kbps Mbps Gbps
Transmission power Tens of watts Few mW to hundreds of watts Few watts
Fig. 1 A typical UWOC link.5
light-emitting diode (LED)/laser diode, which converts the signal in optical form. The function
of transmitter optics is to focus the beam toward the direction of the receiver. At the receiver end,
the incoming signal is collected by the receiver optics. The received optical signal is converted
to an electrical signal using the photodetector. Further, the signal processor and demodulator
recover the original message signal from the electrical signal.
In UWOC, simple optical sources such as a LED or a laser diode are used to generate the
optical carrier signal. The choice of LED/laser diode depends on particular requirements such
as output power, water type, etc. Laser diodes have more output power, narrow spectral width,
highly collimated beam, fast switching time, low latency, and high data rate compared with
LEDs.6 In this work, a 532-nm laser diode is used as an optical source. At this wavelength, the
optical signal attenuation is low. At the receiver end, either an avalanche photo diode (APD) or a
positive-intrinsic-negative (PIN) photodiode can be used as the photodetector for optical to elec-
trical conversion of the signal. The receiver in UWOC should have characteristics such as wide
field of view and high gain and signal to noise ratio (SNR).7 For wireless optical communication,
Si-based APD and PIN photodetectors are used in the 400- to 1100-nm wavelength range. The
parameters of Si-based APD and PIN photodetectors are given in Table 2.
A short to medium range of transmission (up to 100 m) is achievable in UWOC. The channel
loss is affected by the attenuation, turbidity of water, and channel length. The maximum achiev-
able link distance is different for different water types. The maximum achievable link distance
also depends upon the divergence angle of the LED/laser diodes. LEDs have a wide divergence
angle compared with that of laser diodes. Therefore, to achieve a large link distance, a laser
diode should be used with a highly collimated beam and a low divergence angle.8 A transmission
distance of 56 m was achieved at 3.31 Gbps9 with a laser diode. A link length in hundreds of
meters is difficult in UWOC due to larger attenuation in an underwater channel compared with a
free-space optical (FSO) channel. The optical signal is attenuated up to 0.39 dB/m where the
acoustic signal attenuation is 0.1 to 4 dB/km.3 Therefore, it is necessary to design a loss tolerant

Table 2 Generic operating parameters of Si-based APD and PIN photodetectors.
Parameters APD PIN
Wavelength range 400 to 1100 nm 400 to 1100 nm
Multiplication gain 20 to 400 —
Dark current 0.1 to 1 nA 1 to 10 nA
Gain.bandwidth 100 to 400 GHz —
Modulation (bandwidth) — 0.3 to 0.7 GHz
Bias voltage 150 to 400 V 5V
Responsivity (in A/W) 0.1 to 1 0.4 to 0.6
UWOC system. Chen et al.10 designed a loss tolerant UWOC system using a compact 520-nm
laser diode with a high output power of 290 mW. In coastal water, they could achieve a data rate
of 20 Mbps over a length of 24 m. Table 3 shows highlights of research work done in UWOC.
Most researchers have implemented the UWOC system using the non-return to zero-on–off
keying (NRZ-OOK) modulation technique because of its simplicity. However, other modulation
techniques, such as the binary phase shift keying (BPSK), quadrature phase shift keying
(QPSK), and quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), need to be explored; despite being com-
plex, these can reduce the BER and thus improve the range of transmission and data rate in the
underwater channel. In this work, different modulation techniques, such as BPSK, QPSK, 16-
QAM, and NRZ-OOK, are investigated and their BER performance is compared. The UWOC
channel is implemented in a commercial simulation tool. The effect of absorption and scattering
losses in pure sea water is also included in the performance evaluation. The results obtained from
the simulation are analyzed and discussed. The rest of the paper is organised as follows.
Section 2 describes the behaviour of the UWOC channel in terms of the absorption and scattering
phenomena. Section 3 provides the simulation setup for the BPSK/QPSK, 16-QAM, and
Table 3 Highlights of research work done in UWOC.
Authors Optical source Modulation Detector Remarks
Lu et al.11 405-nm blue laser diode 16 QAM PIN 9.6 Gbps
8-m link
Oubei et al.12 450 nm laser diode 16 QAM APD 4.8 Gbps 5.4-m link
— —
Wang et al.8 521 nm LED 128 QAMDMT MultiPIN 2.175 Gbps
Wang et al.13 LED NRZ SPAD Detection sensitivity improved with

SPAD compared with APD
Oubei et al.14 450-nm laser diode 16 QAM APD 4.8-Gbps 5.4-m link
Jamali et al. 15
— OOK — BER of 10−9 achieved for a 25 m
coastal water link
Shen et al.16 450-nm laser diode QAM APD 2 Gbps 12-m link
Elamassie et al. 17
532-nm laser diode 16 QAM APD 53-m link in pure sea BER ¼ 10−3
Kharraz and 1552-nm laser diode NRZ OOK APD APD shows better performance than
Forsyth7 and PIN in weak turbulence
Yadav and Laser diode OOK APD Error prob. Of 10−9 achieved in
Kumar18 various water types using OCDMA

NRZ-OOK modulation-based UWOC systems. In Sec. 4, the results obtained in this work are
discussed. Section 5 concludes this paper.
2 UWOC Channel
2.1 Receiver
The internal gain of the APD photodetector provides higher SNR and makes it suitable for long
distances and high speed communications. The photodetector performance mainly depends on
the thermal noise and the shot noise. The thermal noise is given by 4KTB, where K is the
Boltzmann’s constant, T is the absolute temperature in Kelvin, and B is the receiver bandwidth.
The mean squared value of the shot noise current for the PIN and APD photodetectors are
given as19
I 2PIN ¼ 2eI D B;
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e001;116;573 (1)
I 2APD ¼ 2eI D BM 2 F;
where e is the charge of an electron, I D is the dark current, M is the multiplication gain of the
APD photodetector, and F is the excess noise figure. The shot noise in a PIN photodetector
depends on the dark current (I D ) and the receiver bandwidth (B), whereas in an APD photo-
detector, it also depends on the multiplication gain (M) and the excess noise figure (F).
Therefore, the multiplication factor needs to be optimized in an APD photodetector. Also, the
excess noise figure is a function of the multiplication gain and is given as20

1
F ¼ kM þ 2 −
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e003;116;446 ð1 − kÞ; (3)
M
where k is the carrier ionization ratio. In general, when the optical signal power is low, the
thermal noise dominates over the shot noise. As a result, APD performs better than PIN diode.
For a high optical signal power, shot noise becomes much greater than the thermal noise, and
the PIN photodetector performs better than the APD photodetector.
2.2 Channel
The underwater channel is different from the FSO channel in a number of ways. The attenuation
of the underwater channel is higher than that of the FSO channel. In a UWOC channel, the total
attenuation is due to the cumulative effect of the absorption and scattering phenomena. Proper
channel modeling is quite necessary for a reliable communication system. Thus, the knowledge
of absorption and scattering losses becomes an important aspect of the UWOC system. The
overall attenuation is described by the extinction coefficient cðλÞ, which is defined as the sum
of the absorption coefficient aðλÞ and the scattering coefficient bðλÞ,5 i.e., cðλÞ ¼ aðλÞ þ bðλÞ.
According to Beer Lambert’s (BL) law, the path loss (PL) is given as21
PLBL ðdÞ ¼ 10log10 e−c d ;

where d is the link distance between the transmitter and receiver. The value of c varies with
the water types. The typical value of c is 0.056 m−1 for pure sea, 0.15 m−1 for clear ocean,
0.305 m−1 for coastal water, and 2.17 m−1 for harbor water.18,22 Using Eq. (4), the attenuation
in dB/km for pure sea is calculated to be 243 dB/km. Equation (4) is based on the assumptions
that the transmitter and receiver are perfectly aligned and that all of the scattered photons are lost
in the path of transmission.
The optical beam spreads as it traverses the optical path between the transmitter and receiver.
The geometric loss due to beam spreading is approximated as23

2
DR
PLGL ðdÞ ¼ 10log10 ; (5)
θd
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e005;116;735
where DR is the receiver aperture diameter and θ is the full-width transmitter beam divergence
angle. From Eqs. (4) and (5), the overall PL is given as
2
DR
PLðdÞ ¼ PLBL ðdÞ þ PLGL ðdÞ ¼ 10log10 e−cd ; (6)
θd
Considering the fact that all of the scattered photons are not lost in the path of transmission
and taking into consideration the effect of these scattered photons at the detector, Eq. (6) is
modified as17
2 D T
DR −cd θdR
PLðdÞ ¼ 10log10 e ; (7)
θd
where T is a coefficient found via data fitting to ray tracing simulation data.
BL law defined in Eq. (4) is quite primitive as it treats absorption and scattering as identical
attenuating factors for the transmitted power. However, it is not true in the case of multiple
scattering. Absorption means that a photon interacts with the particle of the underwater channel
and all its energy gets lost. By contrast, the photon after interacting with the particle keeps
on propagating in scattering because all its energy is not lost, so it is possible that this photon
interacts with some other particle. Thus, in the case of multiple scattering, the absorption and
scattering phenomena need to be modeled differently. The total scattering (S) is the sum of the
scattering due to suspended particles, turbulence, and molecules of water,5,24,25 i.e.,
S ¼ Ssp þ St þ Sw ;
where Ssp is the scattering due to suspended particles, St is the scattering due to turbulence, and
Sw is the scattering due to molecules of water. Of all of the scattering defined in Eq. (8), scatter-
ing due to turbulence is the most dominant.
The UWOC link performance also depends upon the temperature and salinity conditions of
the underwater channel. Ata and Korotkova26 studied the UWOC link performance by varying
the temperature of underwater channel from 0°C to 30°C and salinity conditions from 0 to 40 ppt.
The UWOC performance has an inverse relation with temperature and salinity and a direct
relation with wavelength.
For a UWOC channel, the turbulence is modeled with the help of a log-normal probability
density function (PDF) model for weak turbulence and a Gamma-Gamma PDF model for strong
turbulence conditions. The log-normal PDF model is given as25

ln x þ σ2l
1 2
f X ðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2ffi exp − ; (9)
2σ 2l
2πσ l x
where σ 2l represents the log-intensity variance. σ 2l is defined as27
σ 2l ¼ 1.23C2n k7∕6 L11∕6 :

In Eq. (10), C2n is the refractive index structure constant with values ranging from 10−13 to
10−17 m−2∕3 , k is the optical wave number, and L is the distance between the transmitter and
receiver. Similarly, the gamma-gamma PDF model is given as25
2ðαβÞðαþβÞ∕2 ðαþβÞ∕2−1 pffiffiffiffiffiffi

f X ðxÞ ¼ x K α−β ð2 αβxÞ; (11)
ΓðαÞΓðβÞ
where α and β are the effective numbers of large and small scale scatterers, Γ is the gamma
function, and Kð:Þ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind.

For NRZ-OOK, the error probability without turbulence is

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pb ¼ Qð SNRÞ; EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e012;116;723 (12)
2 2
where SNR is the signal-to-noise ratio defined as RσP2 r . R is the responsivity of the photodetector,
n
Pr is the received power, and σ 2n is the noise power and consists of shot noise, thermal noise,
background noise, and dark current noise. The relation between the received power and trans-
mitted power with PL is given as
2 D T
DR −cd θdR
Pr ¼ Pt e : (13)
θd
With turbulence, the average bit error rate (BER) for NRZ-OOK is expressed as
Z ∞ Z ∞ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PeðNRZ−OOKÞ ¼ Pb ðxÞf X ðxÞdx ¼ Qð SNRðxÞÞf X ðxÞdx.
0 0
Similarly, the average BER for BPSK and QPSK in the presence of weak and strong turbulence
is given as
Z ∞ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PeðBPSK;QPSKÞ ¼ Qð 2SNRðxÞÞf X ðxÞdx; (15) EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e015;116;512
The probability of symbol error for 16-QAM in the presence of turbulence is

Z ∞ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Peð16−QAMÞ ¼ 3Qð 2SNRðxÞÞf X ðxÞdx: EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e016;116;457 (16)
0
The performance of the UWOC channel can also be analyzed in terms of the outage prob-
ability. Outage occurs in wireless communication systems when the information rate R (in bits
per symbol) exceeds the channel capacity C. The outage probability is defined mathematically as
2R − 1
Pout ðRÞ ¼ ProbðR > CÞ ¼ ProbðR > log2 ð1 þ x2 SNRÞ ≈
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e017;116;377 : (17)
SNR
The BER and outage probability play a very important role in the performance evaluation of
wireless optical communication systems.
3 Simulation Setup for BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM, and NRZ-OOK

Modulation-Based UWOC Systems Using APD and PIN
Photodetectors
The simulation setups for the implementation of BPSK/QPSK-, 16-QAM-, and NRZ-OOK-
based UWOC systems are shown in Figs. 2–4, respectively. Figure 2 shows the simulation setup
for the BPSK and QPSK modulation technique-based UWOC system. The same setup is used for
BPSK as well as QPSK by adjusting the components and parameters. In the PSK transmitter
component, the bits per symbol is taken as 1 for BPSK and 2 for QPSK. Also, the universal DSP
and decision component can be chosen as either BPSK or QPSK. The bits per symbol is taken as
1 for BPSK and 2 for QPSK in the PSK sequence decoder. The symbol rate is adjusted accord-
ingly by the simulation tool itself. In Fig. 3, a QAM transmitter is taken, and the bits per symbol
is taken as 4 for 16-QAM modulation. For BPSK, QPSK and 16-QAM, a BER test set is used for
measuring the BER. For the NRZ-OOK modulation, a BER analyzer is used. The UWOC chan-
nel is implemented by adjusting the attenuation taking into consideration the effect of absorption
and scattering losses according to the water type, which is pure sea for this simulation. The other
important simulation parameters are shown in Table 4. In the optical coherent receiver, either an
APD or a PIN photodetector can be selected. The BER is measured by varying the transmitter
power from 0 to 27.5 dBm. Visualizers such as the WDM analyzer and the electrical

Fig. 2 Simulation setup for analyzing the BER performance of BPSK and QPSK modulation-
based UWOC systems using the BER test set.
Fig. 3 Simulation setup for analyzing the BER performance of 16-QAM modulation-based UWOC
system using the BER test set.
Fig. 4 Simulation setup for analyzing the BER performance of NRZ-OOK modulation-based
UWOC system using the BER analyzer.
constellation visualizer are also used for measuring the OSNR and observing the electrical con-
stellation diagram for BPSK, QPSK, and 16-QAM.
4 Results and Discussion

Using the simulation setup for all of the modulation techniques as shown in Figs. 2–4, the BER is
measured by varying the transmitter power starting from 0 dBm. The range of the UWOC chan-
nel is fixed at 100 m. It was observed that the minimum BER is achieved using the QPSK modu-
lation technique for the same transmitter power and channel conditions. The variation of the BER

Table 4 Simulation parameters for BPSK/QPSK-, 16-QAM-, and

NRZ-OOK-based UWOC systems.
Parameters Values
Range 100 m
Bit rate 10 Gbps
CW laser frequency 563.52 THz
Transmitter power 0 to 27.5 dBm
Bits per symbol 1 for BPSK
2 for QPSK
4 for 16-QAM
Extinction ratio (for MZ modulator) 300 dB
Attenuation (for UWOC channel) 243 dB/Km
Transmitter aperture diameter 5 cm
Receiver aperture diameter 5 cm
Beam divergence angle 2 mrad
Scinitillation model Log-normal (for weak turbulence)
Gamma-gamma (for strong turbulence)
Gaussian optical filter frequency 563.52 THz
Gaussian optical filter bandwidth 10 GHz
Multiplication gain (for APD) 25
Responsivity 1 A/W (for APD)
0.4 A/W (for PIN)
Dark current 0.1 nA for APD
10 nA for PIN
Carrier ionisation ratio (for APD) 0.1
Thermal power density 100e-024
Sequence length 2097152
with the transmitter power in weak turbulence is shown in Fig. 5. At 12.5-dBm transmitter
power, a BER of 10−8 was achieved using the QPSK modulation technique and APD as the
photodetector. However, if a PIN photodetector is used, then a BER of 7.8 × 10−6 is achieved
for the same transmitter power and modulation technique. To achieve a BER of 10−8 using the
PIN photodetector and QPSK modulation technique, a transmitter power of 17.5 dBm is
required. For all of the modulation techniques, APD photodetector performs better in terms
of the BER performance since the sensitivity of the APD photodetector is higher compared with
the PIN photodetector. Thus, for the same transmitter power, a lower BER is obtained using the
APD photodetector compared with the PIN photodetector. Moreover, the performance of APD
and PIN depends on whether the system is thermal noise limited or shot noise limited as dis-
cussed in Sec. 2. The shot noise is dependent on the dark current for both PIN and APD, as is
observed from Eqs. (1) and (2). For an APD photodetector, the shot noise also depends on
the multiplication gain and the excess noise figure. The excess noise figure is a function of the
multiplication gain and the carrier ionisation ratio, as is seen from Eq. (3). Using Eq. (3), the

Fig. 5 BER versus transmitter power in weak turbulence (log-normal scinitillation model).
Fig. 6 Excess noise figure versus multiplication gain using Si APD (400 to 1100 nm) for different
values of the carrier ionisation ratio.
excess noise figure is plotted as a function of multiplication gain, as shown in Fig. 6. With the
increase in multiplication gain of APD, the noise figure increases, which increases the shot noise.
Also, the least noise figure is possible for a lower carrier ionisation ratio of 0.1. Using Eqs. (1)
and (2) and the generic operating parameters for APD and PIN photodetectors as shown in
Table 2, the noise is plotted against the multiplication gain shown in Fig. 7. It is observed that,
above a certain multiplication gain, which is 80 in this case, the APD shot noise becomes greater
than the the thermal noise, and therefore the APD performance deteriorates. The maximum value
of multiplication gain of APD is different for different load resistance values.
The second best BER performance is shown by the BPSK modulation technique and the
worst is by NRZ-OOK. A high transmitter power of 22.5 dBm is required to achieve a
BER of 10−8 in weak turbulence using BPSK modulation and the APD photodetector. With
the PIN photodetector, a BER of 6.78 × 10−6 can only be achieved with the same transmitter
power. For a 100 m transmission distance, unity BER is observed for the NRZ-OOK modulation
technique for both the APD and PIN photodetectors. This shows that using NRZ-OOK

Fig. 7 Noise versus multiplication gain using Si APD/PIN (400 to 1100 nm).
Fig. 8 BER versus transmitter power in strong turbulence (gamma–gamma scinitillation model).
modulation, the range of transmission in UWOC cannot be as high as 100 m. Using 16-QAM
modulation, the BER of ~0.5 is observed using the BER test set. This poor BER performance is
due to higher intersymbol interference in the system when using a higher level modulation
format, which is 16 in this case. However, the BER can be reduced using signal processing
techniques while using a higher level modulation format in QAM.
The variation of the BER with the transmitter power is also observed in strong turbulence.
The QPSK modulation technique shows the best BER performance in strong turbulence as
shown in Fig. 8. A BER of 9 × 10−7 was observed using the QPSK modulation technique and
APD photodetector at 12.5-dBm transmitter power. For the same transmitter power using PIN as
the photodetector, a BER of 7.6 × 10−6 was observed. Thus, APD performs better in both weak
and strong turbulence. The difference in the BER performance of the APD and PIN photode-
tectors can also be understood from the electrical constellation diagrams of BPSK and QPSK as
shown in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively.
The BER performance can also be understood from the plot of the BER with OSNR as shown
in Fig. 11. In weak turbulence, OSNR of 65 dB is required to achieve a BER of 10−8 using QPSK
modulation and an APD photodetector. If the PIN photodetector is used, the BER of 7.8 × 10−6
can only be achieved at the same OSNR. For BPSK, OSNR of 70 dB is required to achieve a

Fig. 9 Electrical constellation diagram for BPSK modulation at 15-dBm transmitter power:
(a) when the APD photodetector is used and (b) when the PIN photodetector is used.
Fig. 10 Electrical constellation diagram for QPSK modulation at 15-dBm transmitter power:
(a) when the APD photodetector is used and (b) when the PIN photodetector is used.
Fig. 11 BER versus OSNR : (a) in weak turbulence and (b) in strong turbulence.

BER of 10−8 using an APD photodetector. With PIN, OSNR of 75 dB is required to achieve the
same BER. Similarly in strong turbulence, it can be observed from Fig. 11(b) that QPSK modu-
lation and an APD photodetector show the best BER performance. In strong channel conditions,
the BER performance is also analyzed by replacing the continuous wave (CW) laser with
an LED as the optical source. But the BER performance is degraded when the LED is used
in place of the laser. Using the QPSK modulation technique, a BER of 10−4 is obtained at
12.5-dBm transmitter power when an APD photodetector is used. When the PIN photodetector
is used, a BER of 10−2 is observed for the same transmitter power.
Using Eq. (17), the outage probability was also calculated for better analysis of the system.
The outage probability comes out to be 0.1519 × 10−4 using QPSK modulation at an SNR of
52.96 dB. At 65.45 dB, the outage probability reduces to 0.0085 × 10−4 . The outage probability
is reduced further using multiple receiving antenna, which in turn also improves the diversity
gain. Using M receiving antennas, the outage probability reduces as SNR−M .
The simulation results obtained above show that, by optimizing the value of multiplication
gain for the APD photodetector and other parameters such as the carrier ionisation ratio and the
dark current, the BER performance was improved using the QPSK modulation technique for a
100-m transmission distance. The transmitter and receiver aperture diameter and the beam diver-
gence angle are taken according to the need of the UWOC applications. The BER results
obtained outperform the existing work done for the BER performance analysis of UWOC sys-
tems. Previous researchers have achieved a BER in the range of 10−6 to 10−9 in UWOC, but with
a transmission distance of < 100 m.
5 Conclusion and Future Scope

In this work, the BER performance of different modulation techniques, such as BPSK, QPSK,
16-QAM, and NRZ-OOK, in UWOC systems has been compared in the presence of weak and
strong turbulence in the underwater channel. The photodetectors used are APD and PIN. It has
been observed that the QPSK modulation technique shows the best BER performance in both
weak and strong turbulence. Also, it is observed that APD performs better than PIN under certain
conditions. This research work also provides the optimum values of multiplication gain, dark
current, and carrier ionisation ratio of the photodetector for use in the UWOC system. A BER of
10−8 has been achieved in weak turbulence using the QPSK modulation technique and APD
photodetector. In strong turbulence, a BER of 9 × 10−7 has been achieved using QPSK modu-
lation and the APD photodetector.
The performance evaluation with spatial diversity and relay assisted communication with
reflective surfaces will be part of future research. Overall, the optimization of APD/PIN gain
plays a very important role in BER performance of wireless optical communication systems.
Acknowledgments
The research work described in this article was possible due to the infrastructural support and
research facilities available at the Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering,
Bennett University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
References
1. J. V. Aravind, S. Kumar, and S. Prince, “Mathematical modelling of underwater wireless
optical channel,” in Int. Conf. Commun. and Signal Process., IEEE, pp. 0776–0780 (2018).
2. R. M. Dunbar et al., “Autonomous underwater vehicle communications,” in ROV, pp. 270–
278 (1990).
3. S. Kumar et al., “Analysis on the effect of salinity in underwater wireless optical commu-
nication,” Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 38(3), 291–301 (2020).
4. S. Singh, G. Kakamanshadi, and S. Gupta, “Visible light communication-an emerging wire-
less communication technology,” in 2nd Int. Conf. Recent Adv. Eng. and Comput. Sci.,
IEEE, pp. 1–3 (2015).

5. H. Kaushal and G. Kaddoum, “Underwater optical wireless communication,” IEEE Access

4, 1518–1547 (2016).
6. G. Keiser, Optical Fiber Communications, Vol. 2, McGraw-Hill, New York (2000).
7. O. Kharraz and D. Forsyth, “Pin and apd photodetector efficiencies in the longer wavelength
range 1300–1550 nm,” Optik 124(16), 2574–2576 (2013).
8. F. Wang et al., “High speed underwater visible light communication system based on LED
employing maximum ratio combination with multi-PIN reception,” Opt. Commun. 425,
106–112 (2018).
9. Y. Zhu and K. B. Letaief, “Single-carrier frequency-domain equalization with noise predic-
tion for MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun. 55(5), 1063–1076 (2007).
10. Z. Chen et al., “Experimental demonstration of over 14 AL underwater wireless optical
communication,” IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 33(4), 173–176 (2021).
11. H.-H. Lu et al., “An 8 m/9.6 Gbps underwater wireless optical communication system,”
IEEE Photonics J. 8(5), 1–7 (2016).
12. H. M. Oubei et al., “4.8 Gbit/s 16-QAM-OFDM transmission based on compact 450-nm
laser for underwater wireless optical communication,” Opt. Express 23(18), 23302–23309
(2015).
13. C. Wang, H.-Y. Yu, and Y.-J. Zhu, “A long distance underwater visible light communication
system with single photon avalanche diode,” IEEE Photonics J. 8(5), 1–11 (2016).
14. H. M. Oubei et al., “Light based underwater wireless communications,” Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.
57(8S2), 08PA06 (2018).
15. M. V. Jamali, A. Chizari, and J. A. Salehi, “Performance analysis of multi-hop underwater
wireless optical communication systems,” IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 29(5), 462–465
(2017).
16. C. Shen et al., “20-meter underwater wireless optical communication link with 1.5 Gbps
data rate,” Opt. Express 24(22), 25502–25509 (2016).
17. M. Elamassie, F. Miramirkhani, and M. Uysal, “Channel modeling and performance char-
acterization of underwater visible light communications,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Commun.
Workshops, IEEE, pp. 1–5 (2018).
18. A. Yadav and A. Kumar, “Performance analysis of underwater 2D OCDMA system,” Lect.
Notes Electr. Eng. 648, 477–484 (2019).
19. G. Keiser, “Optical fiber communications,” in Wiley Encyclopedia of Telecommunications
(2003).
20. G. Keiser, Optical Fiber Communications, McGraw-Hill Science, Engineering & Mathematics
(1983).
21. C. D. Mobley et al., “Comparison of numerical models for computing underwater light
fields,” Appl. Opt. 32(36), 7484–7504 (1993).
22. A. Yadav et al., “Channel capacity of underwater channel using OCDMA system,” Lect.
Notes Electr. Eng. 771, 567–572 (2020).
23. J. Poliak et al., “Link budget for high-speed short-distance wireless optical link,” in
8th Int. Symp. Commun. Syst., Networks and Digital Signal Process., IEEE, pp. 1–6
(2012).
24. A. Yadav, S. Kar, and V. Jain, “Performance of 1-D and 2-D OCDMA systems in presence
of atmospheric turbulence and various weather conditions,” IET Commun. 11(9), 1416–
1422 (2017).
25. A. Yadav, S. Kar, and V. Jain, “Performance enhancement of double hard limited 2-D atmos-
pheric OCDMA system using aperture averaging and spatial diversity,” IET Commun. 13(5),
585–593 (2019).
26. Y. Ata and O. Korotkova, “Adaptive optics correction in natural turbulent waters,” J. Opt.
Soc. Am. A 38(4), 587–594 (2021).
27. A. Prokeš, “Modeling of atmospheric turbulence effect on terrestrial FSO link,”
Radioengineering 18(1), 42–47 (2009).
Faisal Zeeshan is a PhD scholar in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at
Bennett University. He completed his MTech degree from Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical
University, Lucknow, in 2020. His research interests include wireless optical communications,

underwater wireless optical communications, secure underwater communications, and wireless

communications.
Ajay Yadav received his B.Tech degree from Guru Jambheshwar of the University of Science
and Technology, Hisar, Haryana, in 2010. He obtained his MTech degree from Indian Institute of
Technology (Indian School of Mines) Dhanbad in 2013. He is the recipient of the National
Photonics Fellowship from May 2013–July 2013 at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)
Delhi, New Delhi. He obtained his PhD from IIT Delhi in 2018. He worked as assistant professor
in the Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) at Government
Women Engineering College, Ajmer, India, during 2018–2019. Since 2019, he has worked
as an assistant professor in the ECE Department, Bennett University, Greater Noida, Uttar
Pradesh, India. His areas of interest include wireless optical communication, fiber optic sensors,
embedded systems, IoT, and quantum communication.
Rahul Mukherjee received his PhD from IIT Kharagpur in 2018 in micro-electro-mechanical
systems (MEMS) and VLSI Design, his MTech degree from BESU (Now IIEST) Shibpur
in 2010 in VLSI Design, and his BE degree from NIT Durgapur in 2004 in electronics and
communication engineering. He has published his work in SCI indexed journal papers and filed
Indian patents. His areas of interest include MEMS, sensors, IoT, energy harvesting, and smart
farming. He is now working as an associate professor at Bennett University, Greater Noida,
India.


Comparative Analysis of Underwater Wireless Optical Communication System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Comparative Analysis of Underwater Wireless Optical Communication System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative Analysis of Underwater Wireless Optical Communication System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative analysis of underwater wireless optical

Faisal Zeeshan,* Ajay Yadav, and Rahul Mukherjee

Abstract. The performance of an underwater wireless optical communication (UWOC) system

*Address all correspondnece to Faisal Zeeshan, faisalzshn8@gmail.com

0091-3286/2022/$28.00 © 2022 SPIE

Optical Engineering 036113-1 March 2022 • Vol. 61(3)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Nov 2022

Table 1 Comparison of different underwater wireless communication technologies.

Parameters Acoustic RF Optical

Attenuation 0.1 to 4 dB/Km 3.5 to 5 dB/Km 0.39 dB/m (ocean)

Latency High Moderate Low

Bandwidth 1 to 100 KHz 3 to 30 MHz 10 to 150 MHz

Speed 1500 m/s 2.225 × 108 m∕s 2.225 × 108 m∕s

Range Up to Kms Up to 10 m 10 to 100 m

Data rate Kbps Mbps Gbps

Transmission power Tens of watts Few mW to hundreds of watts Few watts

Fig. 1 A typical UWOC link.5

Optical Engineering 036113-2 March 2022 • Vol. 61(3)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Nov 2022

Table 2 Generic operating parameters of Si-based APD and PIN photodetectors.

Parameters APD PIN

Wavelength range 400 to 1100 nm 400 to 1100 nm

Multiplication gain 20 to 400 —

Dark current 0.1 to 1 nA 1 to 10 nA

Gain.bandwidth 100 to 400 GHz —

Modulation (bandwidth) — 0.3 to 0.7 GHz

Bias voltage 150 to 400 V 5V

Responsivity (in A/W) 0.1 to 1 0.4 to 0.6

Table 3 Highlights of research work done in UWOC.

Authors Optical source Modulation Detector Remarks

Lu et al.11 405-nm blue laser diode 16 QAM PIN 9.6 Gbps

Wang et al.8 521 nm LED 128 QAMDMT MultiPIN 2.175 Gbps

Wang et al.13 LED NRZ SPAD Detection sensitivity improved with

Optical Engineering 036113-3 March 2022 • Vol. 61(3)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Nov 2022

PLBL ðdÞ ¼ 10log10 e−c d ;

Optical Engineering 036113-4 March 2022 • Vol. 61(3)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Nov 2022

where σ 2l represents the log-intensity variance. σ 2l is defined as27

σ 2l ¼ 1.23C2n k7∕6 L11∕6 :

2ðαβÞðαþβÞ∕2 ðαþβÞ∕2−1 pffiffiffiffiffiffi

Optical Engineering 036113-5 March 2022 • Vol. 61(3)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Nov 2022

For NRZ-OOK, the error probability without turbulence is

The probability of symbol error for 16-QAM in the presence of turbulence is

3 Simulation Setup for BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM, and NRZ-OOK

Optical Engineering 036113-6 March 2022 • Vol. 61(3)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Nov 2022

4 Results and Discussion

Optical Engineering 036113-7 March 2022 • Vol. 61(3)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 21 Nov 2022

Table 4 Simulation parameters for BPSK/QPSK-, 16-QAM-, and

Bit rate 10 Gbps

CW laser frequency 563.52 THz

Transmitter power 0 to 27.5 dBm

Bits per symbol 1 for BPSK

Extinction ratio (for MZ modulator) 300 dB