Performance Analysis of Dipole and Bow-Tie

Antenna for Underwater Communication

Using FEKO
2021 Emerging Trends in Industry 4.0 (ETI 4.0) | 978-1-6654-2237-6/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ETI4.051663.2021.9619355

Mehaboob Mujawar*, D.Vijaya Saradhi**, S.Lenin Desai***, M.Venkateswararao****

*Assistant Professor, Goa College of Engineering, Goa-India
**Associate Professor, Malineni Perumalu Educational Society Group of Institutions, Andhra Pradesh, India
***Teaching Fellow, University College of Engineering BIT Campus, Trichy, Tamil Nadu, India
****Assistant Professor, Dhanekulla Institute of Engineering and Technology, Andhra Pradesh, India

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to design antenna and
analyze the behavior of short-range electromagnetic wave
communication for underwater environment in terms of
return loss, gain, and radiation pattern. The Analyses is
based on the simulation of the antenna characteristics using
FEKO electromagnetic (EM) software. This paper mainly
focuses on the performance of two antennas, specifically
dipole and bow tie. These antennas are assessed through
simulation and their performance is studied at different
frequencies for air, freshwater, and seawater.
Keywords: Dipole Antenna, Bow-Tie Antenna, Underwater
Communication, FEKO, Radiation pattern, Return loss.
I. INTRODUCTION
There are two types of underwater communication:
wired communication and wireless communication.
Wired communication is still used when a high-speed
communication link is necessary between remote end
and surface. Much research has been carried out to
establish this high-speed communication using wireless
technology, which reduces the burden of heavy cables.
The transmission of power or information between
multiple systems that are not connected by an electrical
conductor is known as wireless communication. The
most common wireless technology used in the air is
radio frequency (RF) waves because it has high data
rates over long distances and low signal attenuation. It
has various types of fixed, mobile, and portable
applications, including telephones, Bluetooth, GPS,
satellite television. The uncommon methods used to
accomplish wireless communication in the air include
light, magnetic or electric fields, and sound. Underwater
wireless communication mainly includes acoustic
communication, optical communication, and radio
frequency (RF) communication. Among these three,
acoustic and optical communication is mostly used
because these technologies are not affected by the
salinity of water, and acoustic waves travel five times
faster in water than air [2]. Optical and acoustic
communication has its own advantages and
disadvantages that radio frequency (RF) systems do not
have in their usage for underwater communications.
Acoustic and ultrasonic systems are unfit for real-time,
because of its low data rates, high latency, poor noise
immunity. Also, it has poor performance in a turbid
underwater environment. However, optical
communications have high data rates at short distances,
and low latency which is major advantages over acoustic
technologies at the same time optical system are affected
by turbidity of water and require line of sight [3]. The
Radio Frequency (RF) waves can overcome some of the
limitations of both acoustic and optical communications.
The advantage of RF is that it is not affected by
turbidity, operates in non-line-of-sight and additionally,
they are immune to acoustic noise, allow high
bandwidth, and have high data rates at short distances.
However, radio frequency (RF) is susceptible to
electromagnetic interference (EMI) [4] and they have
high signal attenuation due to the conductivity of the
water. Wired connection suffers from the following
drawbacks such as Tearing of wires, Short period
experiments, Setup cost, Long distance experiments,
Lack of mobility. To handle the above drawbacks we
need wireless communication. Some of the applications
in which wireless communication is used are
1.Collection of diversified data that are useful for
climate recording, 2. Prediction of natural disturbances,
3. Search and survey missions, 4. Study of marine life
[1], 5. Object detection, 6. Pollution control. The goal of
this research was to examine the antennas at different
frequencies and in different mediums, to find which
antenna performs better in the respective mediums in
terms of return loss, gain, and radiation pattern. Two
antennas were selected for this study namely dipole
antenna and bow-tie antenna. These antennas were
designed and simulated using FEKO software for 3
frequencies 450 MHz, 900MHz, and 2.4GHz and in

Authorized licensed use limited to: GITAM University. Downloaded on December 03,2021 at 09:11:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
three different mediums i.e. air, fresh water, and sea III. DESIGN OF DIPOLE ANTENNA
water. Also, maximum propagation distance was
calculated for seawater through the simulations. A dipole antenna basically consists of two antenna
elements which are similar in shape and it has been fed
II. LITERATURE SURVEY at the middle by transmission line. It has been used in
several applications for many decades because of its
The majority of work-related to underwater antennas is effectiveness in providing proper communication
done in seawater, in the related literature, we can find avoiding different kind of interference and also its
proposals where authors used frequency below 1 GHz to simple design and the antenna being flexible makes it
design the antenna for underwater applications. EM suitable for wide range of applications, including
waves can achieve data transfer rates of up to 10 Mbps underwater applications [3].Dipole antennas can be used
for very short distances [6]. EM waves are less affected for wide range of applications depending on the
than acoustic waves by the refraction and reflection suitability and configuration of the antenna.
effects in water with little depth. [7]. The speed of EM
waves depends on the conductivity permeability ( ), IV. S IMULATION OF D IPOLE ANTENNA
volume charge density (9) and permittivity (s) of the
medium, and it’s approx. 150,000 times higher than that The FEKO model for the dipole antenna analysis is
of acoustic ones [6]. On the other hand, there are very shown in Fig: 1. the antenna consisted of 3mm thick
few papers about underwater communications based on copper wire with 5.9 cm, 15.8 cm 31.7 cm length at
EM waves. In [8] it was seen that antennas with the same 2.4GHz, 900MHz and 450MHz frequencies respectively.
electrical length behave differently in fresh and seawater.
In addition, [5] concluded that it is possible to predict the
operation of the antennas and improve their design with
software like FEKO. Current research activity is focused
on increasing the distance between devices and
increasing the bandwidth. In paper [9] experiments were
conducted with and without insulating antenna and the
author concluded that antennas with insulation had better
performance in water whereas antenna without insulation
had a good performance in the air [9]. In all cases, the
authors used the frequency below 1 GHz. Future
generation modems will include many signal processing
tools in order to achieve high-data rates at the physical Fig: 1 Dipole antenna
layer when employing any of the technologies available
or a combination of them whenever the environmental 4.1 Design of Bow-Tie Antenna: A bow-tie antenna is
conditions allow [14]. In paper [15], author had sometimes known as a butterfly antenna because it looks
experimented with underwater wireless data and power like butterfly wings. The antenna uses triangular
transfer. He concluded that transfer range is higher in elements instead of straight rods. The bandwidth of the
fresh water compared to sea water. In paper [16], it was antenna is increased by using triangular elements over
concluded that, the transmission level in pure water is straight ones. In [9] the insulated and non-insulated Bow
5dB lower than in air. However, if the conductivity tie antennas were designed and fabricated at 2.4 GHz.
increases, the channel attenuation increases too. The non-insulated antenna had a very good performance
Conductivities greater than (a)=0.1S/m do not allow a in the air whereas the insulated bow-tie antenna had a
good communication in devices with more than 50cm of very good performance for distance up to 38 cm in
separation. In paper [17], authors demonstrated that the water.
use of radio frequency (RF) communications from air to 4.2 Simulation of Bow-tie antenna: The FEKO model
water is possible. In their work, they studied the losses for the Bow-tie antenna analysis is shown in Fig: 2. the
depending on the electromagnetic properties of water antenna consists of 3mm thick copper wire at frequency
between 23 KHz and 1 GHz. Underwater radio 2.4GHz, 900MHz and 450 MHz respectively.
communication experiments [18]. In paper [19], authors
deployed wireless sensor network in unconventional
environments for further studies which are stationed
underground or underwater, in order to monitor soil or
sea properties respectively and then transmit collected
data.

Authorized licensed use limited to: GITAM University. Downloaded on December 03,2021 at 09:11:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig: 2 Bow-Tie antenna
4.3 Results of Dipole Antenna
The reflection coefficient as a function of frequency for
the dipole antennas are presented. In Fig: 3, the dipole
antenna is designed for frequency 2.4 GHz but it
resonates at frequency of 2.41 GHz for air, 2.65 GHz for
freshwater and 1.2 GHz for seawater. In Fig: 4, the Fig: 5 Reflection coefficient for Air (a = 0 S/m), Fresh
dipole antenna is designed for frequency 900 MHz but it water (a = 0.05 S/m) and Sea water (a = 5 S/m) at
resonates at 905 MHz for air, 1 GHz for fresh water and 450MHz.
1 GHz in sea water. Fig:5, shows the result when the
antenna is designed for frequency 450 MHz It resonates
at 450 MHz for air, and 1.4 GHz for seawater. As seen
from Fig: 1, dipole antenna has very good performance
in air whereas when same antenna is used in fresh water
and sea water there is attenuation of signal.

Fig: 6
Fig: 6, 7 and 8 shows Maximal gain of dipole antenna in
polar coordinates for frequencies in air, fresh water and
sea water
Fig: 3 Reflection coefficient for Air (a = 0 S/m), Fresh
water (a = 0.05 S/m) and Sea water (a = 5 S/m) at
2.4GHz

Fig: 7

Fig: 4 Reflection coefficient for Air (a = 0 S/m), Fresh

water (a = 0.05 S/m) and Sea water (a = 5 S/m) at
900MHz

Authorized licensed use limited to: GITAM University. Downloaded on December 03,2021 at 09:11:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig: 8 Fig: 10
Fig: 6, 7 and 8: E-plane radiation pattern for Air (a = 0
S/m), Fresh water (a = 0.05 S/m) and Sea water (a = 5
S/m) at frequencies (a) 2.4GHz and (b) 900MHz (c)
450MHz

4.4 Results of Bow-Tie Antenna

The reflection coefficient of Bow-tie antenna is
presented in Fig: 9, 10 and 11 as a function of frequency.
In Fig: 9, the antenna is designed for frequency 2.4 GHz
but it resonates at frequency of 2.52 GHz for air, 2.65
GHz for freshwater and 1.7 GHz for seawater. In Fig:
10, the antenna is designed for frequency 900 MHz but it
resonates at 920 MHz for air, 990 MHz for freshwater
and 950 MHz for sea water. In Fig: 11, the antenna is
designed for frequency 450 MHz but it resonates at
445MHz in air, and 1.6GHz in sea water. Fig: 11
Fig: 9, 10 and 11 represents Reflection coefficient for
Air (a = 0 S/m), Fresh water (a = 0.05 S/m) and Sea
water (a = 5 S/m) at frequencies (a) 2.4GHz and (b)
900MHz (c) 450MHz
Fig: 12, 13 and 14 shows Maximal gain in polar
coordinates for frequencies in air, fresh water and sea
water.

Fig: 9

Fig: 12

Authorized licensed use limited to: GITAM University. Downloaded on December 03,2021 at 09:11:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 decreases. Additionally Bow- Tie antenna has higher
gain compared to dipole antenna.
Fig: 13
Fig:14
Fig: 12, 13 and 14 represents E-plane radiation pattern
for Air (a = 0 S/m), Fresh water (a = 0.05 S/m) and Sea
water (a = 5 S/m) at frequencies (a) 2.4GHz and (b)
900MHz (c) 450MHz
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the performance of the two antennas in
three different mediums: Air, Freshwater and seawater
was analyzed using FEKO software. From the
simulations, it was concluded that bow tie antenna has
better performance over dipole antenna in terms of gain
and radiation pattern. Additionally the orientation of
radiation pattern changes with respect to the medium.
Also, the same physical antennas cannot be used in
different mediums as their resonance frequency,
radiation pattern changes with respect to the medium.
Hence medium plays a very important role in the
designing of the antennas. From the simulation results of
transmission and receiving antenna it was seen that
antenna radiated at longer distance in fresh water
compared to sea water as there is more attenuation in sea
water environment. It was also seen that as the
conductivity increases the radiating distance of antenna
Authorized licensed use limited to: GITAM University. Downloaded on December 03,2021 at 09:11:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
REFERENCES
[1] John Heidemann, Milica Stojanovic, Michele Zorzi,
“Underwater Sensor networks: applications, advances and
challenges” Published 28 November 2011.DOI:
10.1098/rsta.2011.0214
[2] A. A. Abdou, A. Shaw, A. Mason, A. Al-Shamma’a, S.
Wylie, J. Cullen, “Wireless Sensor Network for Underwater
Communication” Published 05 September 2012.DOI:
10.1049/cp.2012.0579
[3] S. I. Inacio, M. R. Pereira, H. M. Santos, L. M. Pessoa, F.
B. Teixeira, M. J. Lopes, O. Aboderin, H. M. Salgado,
“Dipole Antenna for Underwater Radio Communications”
2016 IEEE Third Underwater Communications and
Networking Conference (UComms) Published 06 October
2016. DOI: 10.1109/UComms.2016.7583457.
[4] Sandra Sendra, Graduate Student Member, IEEE, Jaime
Lloret, Senior Member, IEEE, Joel J. P. C. Rodrigues,
Senior Member, IEEE, and Javier M. Aguiar, “Underwater
Wireless Communications in Freshwater at 2.4 GHz” ,
IEEE Communications Letters ( Volume: 17 , Issue: 9 ,
September 2013 )
[5] S. I. Inacio, M. R. Pereira, H. M. Santos, L. M. Pessoa, F.
B. Teixeira, M. J. Lopes, O. Aboderin, H. M. Salgado,
“Antenna Design for Underwater Radio Communications”,
OCEANS 2016 - Shanghai, 09 June 2016, DOI:
10.1109/OCEANSAP.2016.7485705
[6] Che, X., I. Wells, P. Kear, G. Dickers, X. Gong, and M.
Rhodes, “A static multi-hop underwater wireless sensor
network using RF electromagnetic communications,” 29th
IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing
Systems, Canada, 2009.
[7] Sandra Sendra, Jaime Lloret, Jose Miguel Jimenez and Joel
J.P.C. Rodrigues, “Underwater Communications for Video
Surveillance Systems at 2.4 GHz”, Published: 23 October
2016, DOI: 10.3390/s16101769
[8] Andrea Massaccesi, Paola Pirinoli, “Loop Antennas for
Underwater Communications”, 12th European Conference
on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP 2018), DOI:
10.1049/cp.2018.1147
[9] Konstantinos N. Alvertos, Evangelia A. Karagianni,
Konstantinos D. Vardakis, Thomas K. Mpountas, Dimitra I.
Kaklamani, “Bow-Tie Antenna for Underwater Wireless
Sensor Networks”, 2017 International Workshop on
Antenna Technology: Small Antennas, Innovative
Structures, and Applications (iWAT), 01 May 2017
[10] V. Bhavsar, N. Blas, and H. Nguyen, “Measurement of
antenna radiation patterns laboratory manual”, ee17
laboratory manual ed, University of California, Riverside,
2000.
[11] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory Analysis and design, 3rd ed.
New jersey, USA: John Wiley and Sons, 2005.
[12] J. W. Beeman, C. Grant, and P. V. Haner, “Comparison of
three underwater antennas for use in radio telemetry”, North
America Journal of Fisheries Management, vol. 24, no. 1,
pp. 275-281, 2004
[13] Michal Márton, Ľuboš Ovseník, Ján Turán, Michal Špes,
Jakub Urbanský, “Comparison of Helix Antennas Operated
on 2.4, 5.2 and 9.2GHz for FSO/RF Hybrid System”, 2019
29th International Conference Radioelektronika
(RADIOELEK- TRONIKA), 10 June 2019
[14] Camila M. G. Gussen, Paulo S. R. Diniz, Marcello L. R.
Campos, Wallace A. Martins, Felipe M. Costa, and
Jonathan N. Gois, “A Survey of Underwater Wireless
Communication Technologies”, Journal Of Communication
and Information System, VOL. 31, NO. 1, 2016.
 [15] Neil W. Bergmann, Jonathan Juergens1, Liqun Hou1,
Yunlong Wang1 "Wireless Underwater Power and Data
Transfer", Eight IEEE Workshop on Practical Issues in
Building Sensor Network Applications 2013.
[16] Aleix Garcia Miquel, "UWB Antenna Design For
Underwater Communication", 25 May, 2009
[17] S.Jiang and S.Georgakopoulos, “Electromagnetic wave
propagation into fresh water”, J. Electromagnetic Analysis
and Applications, vol.3, no. 7, pp. 261-266, 2011.
[18] A.Shaw, A.I. Al-Shammaa, S.R.Wylie and D.Toal
“Experimental Investigations of Electromagnetic Wave
Propagation in Sea water” , 2006 European Microwave
Conference, sep.2006,pp.572-575.
[19] H.Kulhandjian, L.C.Kuo , T. Melodia, D.A.Pados,
“Towards Experimental Evaluation of software –Defined
Underwater Networked Systems”, Proc of IEEE
Underwater Communications Conf . and
Workshop(UComms), Sestri Levante , Italy, 2012.

Authorized licensed use limited to: GITAM University. Downloaded on December 03,2021 at 09:11:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
View publication stats