Journal of
Marine Science
and Engineering
Article
Deployment Strategy Analysis for Underwater
Geodetic Networks
Wei Huang 1 , Runying Qiu 1 , Jixuan Zhou 2 and Tianhe Xu 3, *
Citation: Huang, W.; Qiu, R.; Zhou, J.;
Xu, T. Deployment Strategy Analysis
for Underwater Geodetic Networks. J.
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse12010025
Academic Editor: Chung-yen Kuo
Received: 8 November 2023
Revised: 18 December 2023
Accepted: 19 December 2023
Published: 20 December 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12010025
1 Faculty of Information Science and Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China;
hw@ouc.edu.cn (W.H.); qiurunying0208@163.com (R.Q.)
2 Hanjiang Laboratory, Wuhan 430060, China; zhoujixuan126@126.com
3 School of Space Science and Physics, Shandong University at Weihai, Weihai 264200, China
* Correspondence: thxu@sdu.edu.cn
Abstract: Seafloor geodetic network (SGN) is the foundation for building an underwater position-
ing, navigation and timing (PNT) system. Traditional network deployment mainly focuses on the
deployment of underwater sensor network nodes. However, for SGN, there is no surface buoy node
and submarine buoy node, and the number of anchors is limited because it is quite expensive to
fully cover large scale areas. To achieve wide coverage and good positioning service of each set of
underwater base stations, we focus on the network design of a single set of reference stations in
this paper. We propose several deployment plans for a local SGN and then analyze their service
quality indicators by considering the stratification effect caused by non-uniformly distributed sound
speed. To evaluate the performance of each topology of SGN, we compare their coverage range,
horizontal dilution precision (HDOP) and accuracy performance of positioning tests. Based on the
overall performance in our simulation, we believe that the star five-node topology is a good topology
design under sufficient economic conditions.
Keywords: seafloor geodetic network (SGN); underwater positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) system;
anchor deployment; stratification effect; horizontal dilution precision (HDOP)
1. Introduction
Seafloor geodetic networks (SGNs) contain many sets of acoustic-based reference
stations distributed on the seabed, forming a positioning system similar to the global
navigation satellite system (GNSS). It can provide time and spatial information for various
equipment on the water surface and underwater [1]. The SGN is the foundation for
building an underwater positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) system. It is also an
important infrastructure for marine safety, marine economic development, and marine
environmental monitoring, and an important support for marine geological research and
seabed resource exploration.
In 1991, James proposed a buoy-based long baseline positioning system in [2], which
extended the concept of global positioning system (GPS) to underwater systems for the
first time. Unlike terrestrial radio, underwater localization faces with many challenges
due to the special underwater environment, such as the difficulty in clock synchroniza-
tion caused by long signal propagation delay [3,4], the multipath effect caused by signal
reflection at the ocean surface or bottom [5], insufficient reference nodes due to limited
communication coverage of nodes [4,5], and the signal propagation path bending, which is
called stratification effect, caused by the spatio-temporal variety of sound velocity [6,7].
For accurate target localization and navigation, different methods have been developed
using angle of arrival (AOA) [8], time of arrival (TOA) [9], time difference of arrival
(TDOA) [10], received signal strength (RSS) [11], among which the TOA and TDOA are the
two most popular methods adopted in underwater environment. Beck et al. [9] developed
the least squares (LS) approach for positioning a radiating source from circular TOA-based
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 2 of 19

measurements. Carevic [10] proposed a nonlinear LS technique in computing the motion

parameters for each target in a TDOA-based multi-target localization in the 3D space.
To solve the clock asynchronization problem, Cheng et al. proposed a time of arrival
(TOA)-based silent underwater positioning scheme (UPS) in [12], which transforms the
clock asynchronization problem between target node and reference nodes into the clock
asynchronization problem among reference nodes. Carroll et al. and Yan et al., respec-
tively, proposed localization algorithms in [13–15] that utilize asymmetric signal round-trip
processes to reduce clock synchronization requirements.
With the scale expansion of underwater sensor networks, large-scale positioning has
received widespread attention. However, due to the expensive underwater equipment and
sparse node deployment, underwater positioning faces the problem of insufficient reference
nodes. To tackle this problem, Zhou et al. proposed an efficient localization algorithm for
large-scale underwater sensor network in [16], in which a multi-hop 3D Euclidean distance
estimation method was proposed, and new reference nodes were searched among two hop
neighbors. Based on [16], Zhang et al. proposed a top–down positioning scheme in [17]
that optimized the selection of new reference nodes.
To tackle the issue of the underwater sound velocity distribution exhibiting spatio-
temporal variability, resulting in a significant Snell effect in the signal propagation mode [4,6],
Diamant and Lampe proposed a localization algorithm in [18] that regards the sound veloc-
ity as an invariant parameter to be solved. Liu et al. proposed a joint synchronization and
localization method in [19], Zhang et al. proposed a signal trajectory correction localization
method based on Gaussian Newton solution in [20], Zhang et al. proposed a Cramer–Rao
lower bound-based optimality localization (CRLB–OL) method in [21], and Zhang et al.
combined TDOA and AOA measurements for localization with a constrained weighted LS
estimator in [22].
The aforementioned algorithms have proposed good solutions for the problem of
high latency, limited node coverage, and stratification compensation (uniform sound
speed distribution) for underwater positioning. However, apart from above localization
algorithms, target-sensor geometry also plays a significant role in determining target
localization performance. Many underwater deployment methods that concentrate on
improving coverage, latency, and energy efficiency of underwater sensor networks were
proposed ten years ago [23–27].
Recently, Iqbal et al. [28] proposed a deployment strategy that achieves full coverage
of a given area with minimum sensor nodes. Wang et al. [29] proposed a node sinking al-
gorithm for 3D coverage and connectivity in underwater sensor networks. Zhang et al. [30]
proposed an improved cuckoo optimization algorithm to achieve a fair and efficient surface
gateway layout optimization. Liu et al. [31] proposed a dynamic surface gateway place-
ment scheme for mobile underwater networks that maximizes the coverage and minimizes
end-to-end latency. Xu et al. [32] proposed an efficient deployment scheme to provide
reliable data transmission.
Existing deployment works [28–32] mainly focus on underwater wireless sensor
networks. However, the deployment strategy may not suitable for SGNs because of
several reasons. First of all, the SGN is oriented towards large-scale ocean regions, even
the global ocean, so the network construction cannot be seamlessly connected due to
equipment production costs. Secondly, the element nodes in SGN are designed to serve
for predetermined areas for a long time, so the buoys and submerged sensor nodes are
not suitable for SGN as they move with the water flow. Moreover, for each set of acoustic-
based reference stations distributed on the seabed, the stations should form a symmetrical
structure to provide fair and consistent positioning and navigation services for all directions.
The scenario of SGNs is shown in Figure 1.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 3 of 19

Target Anchor nodes

(a)

Target Anchor nodes

Plan path Navigation path
(b)

Figure 1. The scenario of SGNs. (a) Network structure. (b) Navigation path adjustment.

In order to achieve wide coverage and good positioning service of each set of under-
water base stations, we focus on the network design of a single set of reference stations in
this paper. We propose several deployment plans for local SGN, and then analyze their
service quality indicators, including the serving coverage and accuracy performance for
localization. The contribution of our work can be summarized as follows:
• To offer a suitable design of local SGN, we propose several deployment strategies and
compare their coverage and accuracy performance.
• To make the design more realistic, we consider the stratification effect of sound speed
and combine it with the active sonar equation to calculate the coverage characteristics,
where we derive the sound trajectory as a function of the initial grazing angle.
The organization of this paper is elaborated below. Section 2 provides the deployment
strategy of SGN and shows the methods for performance analysis. Comparisons of different
structures of local SGNs are given in Section 3, and conclusions are drawn in Section 4.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 4 of 19

2. Deployment Strategy of SGN

2.1. Network Structures
Due to the sparsity of discontinuous coverage in the deployment of the SGN, the
service range of a set of anchor nodes has become a very important indicator. It has been
proven that the optimal geometry for multi-static TOA localization is symmetric [33]; thus,
we mainly consider the symmetric deployment strategy of SGNs. Moreover, the symmetric
deployment strategy can provide consistency services in all directions.
In this section, we illustrate the detail network model, where the symmetric de-
ployment strategy with anchor Nodes from 3 to 8 is employed. In fact, the underwater
positioning is a 3D problem, thus it requires at least four reference nodes for locating a
target. However, the depth information can be obtained with depth sensors, so the number
of reference anchors can be decreased to three. The deployment strategies are shown in
Figure 2. For symmetric networks, we mainly consider polygon networks as shown in
Figure 2a; however, there is a problem of poor reference node configuration at the edge of
their coverage range. Therefore, we propose a star network for four-node and five-node
scenarios as shown in Figure 2b.

2! ! 2!
= = =
3 2 5
d d d

! 2! !
= = =
3 7 4
d d d

(a)

2! !
= =
3 2
d d

(b)

Figure 2. Deployment of SGNs (red star symbols refer to anchor nodes). (a) Polygon-shaped. (b) Star-
shaped.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 5 of 19

2.2. Anchor Coverage

2.2.1. Single Anchor Coverage
When the signal propagation speed is uniformly distributed in the medium, the
coverage range of a single anchor is a hemisphere as shown in Figure 3a. However, real
underwater sound speed is non-uniformly distributed due to the effect of temperature,
salinity, and static pressure, resulting in a significant Snell refraction effect during signal
propagation. Meanwhile, under the same scale conditions, the variation in sound speed
with depth is more significant compared to that in the horizontal direction, so we assume
that the horizontal direction of the medium is isotropic, and the actual coverage range is
similar to that of a half-ellipsoid as shown in Figure 3b.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 3. Anchor Coverage. (a) Hemisphere. (b) Irregular hemisphere. (c) Sphere intersection model
with 3 anchors.

We assume the sound signal source power is Pa in Watt, the detective threshold of any
receiver in this paper is Dt in dB; then, the sonar function satisfies

Dt = SL − TL − NL, (1)
2
where SL = 10log II0 ,
I is the sound intensity in W/m , and I0 is the reference sound
intensity that satisfies I0 = 0.67 × 10−18 [34]. In fact, I describes the sound intensity
Pa
when signal is transmitted to a distance of 1 m; then, I = 4π for spherical broadcasting.
Therefore, SL can be calculated as SL = 170.77 + 10logPa , the acoustic source level, TL is
the transmission loss, and NL is the noise interference level. The transmission loss caused
by spreading and absorption can be expressed as

TL = n · 10log(r ) + αr × 10−3 , (2)

where r is the transmission distance in meters, n is the propagation factor, and α is the
absorption coefficient measured in decibels per kilometer. The value of n depends on the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 6 of 19

type of channel [35]; when considering the spherical propagation mode of the light-of-sight
signal, there are n = 2. Absorption coefficient α is an empirical monotonic increasing
function of signal frequency f [36], which can be calculated by

0.109 f 2 40.7 f 2
α( f ) = 2
+ + 2.75 × 10−4 f 2 + 0.003, (3)
1+ f 4100 + f 2
where f is measured in kilohertz. By solving Equations (1)–(3), the maximum propagation
distance of the light-of-sight signal can be obtained, which is marked as rmax in the following
parts of this paper.
As mentioned earlier, the variety of sound speed causes signal propagation path
bending, and sound speed changes are typically described using a layered ray model
according to [7,37]. We let the sound speed profile be S = [s0 , s1 , . . . , si ], i = 0, 1, . . . , I. For
a single linear sound speed layer unit, as shown in Figure 4, there is a relationship between
the signal propagation path and the horizontal propagation distance:

dz
dx = . (4)
tanβ i

$
!" !"
# !"

Figure 4. A single linear sound speed layer unit.

According to Snell’s law, Equation (4) can be modified as

cosβ i
dx = q dz, (5)
n2i − cos2 β i

where ni is the refractivity at the ith depth layer. Since the depth information is often
measured with depth sensors, the target localization can be achieved when knowing the
horizontal propagation distance of signals between the target and each reference node.
After integrating, the horizontal propagation distance of the signal from target to the jth
reference node is [34]
sinβ i−1,j − sinβ i,j
∆li,j = , (6)
ai cosβ i−1,j

where ai is the relative gradient of sound speed that satisfies

s(zi ) = s(zi−1 )(1 + ai ∆zi ), ∆zi = zi − zi−1 . (7)

The real signal propagation path is

sinβ i−1,j − sinβ i,j

∆ri,j = . (8)
ai cos2 β i−1,j
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 7 of 19

According to Snell’s law [7,34],

n0 c0 = n i s i = n k s k , (9)

ni s cosβ k,j
= k = . (10)
nk si cosβ i,j
Equation (7) can be rewritten as
q q
1 − (cosβ i−1,j )2 − 1 − (cosβ i,j )2
∆li,j = . (11)
ai cosβ i−1,j

According to (10), there is

cosβ 0,j
cosβ i,j = s. (12)
s0
Then, the total signal propagation distance in the horizontal direction is

cosβ 0,j cosβ

q q
I I 1−( 2
s0 s i −1 ) − 1 − ( s0 0,j si )2
lj = ∑ ∆li,j = ∑ cosβ
, (13)
i =1 i =1 ai−1 ( s0 0,j si−1 )

where horizontal signal propagation distance l j is a function of the initial grazing angle
cosβ 0,j . Meanwhile, based on (8), the real signal propagation distance can be calculated as

cosβ 0,j cosβ

q q
I I 1−( 2
s0 s i −1 ) − 1 − ( s0 0,j si )2
rj = ∑ ∆ri,j = ∑ cosβ
, (14)
i =1 i =1 ai−1 ( s0 0,j si−1 )2

where r j should satisfy r j ≤ rmax .

2.2.2. SGN Coverage

The positioning service area is an irregularly shaped intersection of multiple anchor
coverage areas. Letting P( x, y, z) be a random point, and Pj ( x j , y j , z j ) be the jth anchor
node, the positioning service area V can be modeled as

V = V ( x, y, z)
(15)
s.t.∃ x, y ∈ R, 0 ≤ z ≤ h, 3 ≤ J̇ ≤ J, ( x − x j )2 + (y − y j )2 + (z − z j )2 ≤ r2j , j = 1, 2, . . . , J̇,

where h is the maximum ocean depth. When the target depth is known, through projection
technique, Equation (15) can be rewritten as

V = V ( x, y, z)
(16)
s.t.∃ x, y ∈ R, 0 ≤ z ≤ h, 3 ≤ J̇ ≤ J, ( x − x j )2 + (y − y j )2 ≤ l 2j , j = 1, 2, . . . , J̇.

Model Equation (16) can be solved by many methods, such as enumeration or probability
methods.

2.3. Positioning Service

The SGN is mainly designed to provide PNT services for cooperative targets, so the
depth information is usually known. Therefore, when the pseudo distance is known, the
horizontal distance between the target and the reference node can be calculated using the
trigonometric relationship, which is called projection technique. For positioning based on
projection technique, there should be at least three references for successful localization
of the target. However, when the depth information of the target is inaccurate due to
sensor problem, there are multiple solutions in acoustic ray tracking. In order to obtain
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 8 of 19

accurate positioning results when the depth is unknown, we propose an iterative ray
tracking positioning algorithm in [38], which can convert pseudo distance information into
horizontal distance multiple times, iteratively completing accurate target positioning.
We assume there are J̇ nodes within the communication coverage of the target, and
the rough measured distance between node j and the target is d j = s̄t j , where s̄ is the
average sound speed and t j is the signal propagation time. If the depth information of the
q difference between the jth node and the target is ∆z, the
target is known, and the depth
horizontal distance is l j = d2j − ∆z2 . If the depth information of the target is unknown,
a rough positioning process assuming the signal is propagated straightly is needed first
according to [38] to obtain the initial depth estimation of the target; then, the depth is
adjusted iteratively, during which the depth is always
q assumed to be known, and the
horizontal distance can also be calculated by l j = d2j − ∆z2 . After positioning of the
target, the multilateration method adopted in this paper is

( x1 − x )2 + (y1 − y)2 = l12




 ( x − x )2 + ( y − y )2 = l 2


2 2 2
, j = 1, 2, . . . , J̇, (17)

 . . .

( x j − x )2 + (y j − y)2 = l 2j



where l j denotes the horizontal distances between the target and anchor nodes, respectively.
Subtracting the last equation from the other equations, we have

2x ( x1 − x j ) + 2y(y1 − y j ) = x12 − x2j + y21 − y2j + l 2j − l12





2x ( x2 − x j ) + 2y(y2 − y j ) = x22 − x2j + y22 − y2j + l 2j − l22



, j = 1, 2, . . . , J̇. (18)


 ...
2x ( x j−1 − x j ) + 2y(y j−1 − y j ) = x2j−1 − x2j + y2j−1 − y2j + l 2j − l 2j−1




Equation (18) can be simply rewritten as

A P̂xy = B, (19)

2( x1 − x j ) 2( y1 − y j )
 

2( x2 − x j ) 2( y2 − y j ) 
 
A= , (20)

. . .
 

2 ( x j −1 − x j ) 2 ( y j −1 − y j )

P̂xy = [ x y]T , (21)

x12 − x2j + y21 − y2j + l 2j − l1 2

 

x22 − x2j + y22 − y2j + l 2j − l22 

 

B= , (22)
 

 . . .

x2j−1 − x2j + y2j−1 − y2j + l 2j − l 2j−1

where P̂xy = ( x̂, ŷ) is the estimated horizontal location of the target. Thus, the position of
the target can be calculated through the least square method by
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 9 of 19

P̂xy = ( A T A)−1 A T B. (23)

The final located position of the target is P̂ = ( x̂, ŷ, ẑ), where ẑ is measured by the depth sen-
sor.
When the target is at the edge of the SGN network coverage, although it can be located,
due to the poor configuration of the reference node, it is easy to cause high positioning
errors. Geometric dilution precision (GDOP) is a performance metric commonly used to
describe the quality of service of reference nodes [39]. Therefore, for SGN networks, it is
necessary to calculate their GDOP to evaluate positioning service quality.
According to Equation (23), the real position of target can be expressed as
(
x = x̂ + ∆x
. (24)
y = ŷ + ∆y

We let l j = f j ( x, y) = f j ( x̂ + ∆x, ŷ + ∆y); the first-order Taylor expansion at point P̂xy

related to anchor node j is

∂ fj ∂ fj
f j ( x, y) = f j ( x̂, ŷ) + | P̂xy ∆x + | ∆y, (25)
∂x ∂y P̂xy

∂ fj −( x j − x̂ ) ∂ fj −(y j −ŷ) x j − x̂
where ∂x | P̂xy = √ , ∂y | P̂xy = √ . Let a xj = √ ,
( x j − x̂ )2 +(y j −ŷ)2 ( x j − x̂ )2 +(y j −ŷ)2 ( x j − x̂ )2 +(y j −ŷ)2
y j −ŷ
ayj = √ ; then, we have
( x j − x̂ )2 +(y j −ŷ)2

∆r j = f j ( x̂, ŷ) − f j ( x, y) = a xj ∆x + ayj ∆y, (26)

which can be fully written as

∆r1 = a x1 ∆x + ay1 ∆y



∆r = a ∆x + a ∆y

2 x2 y2
. (27)


 ...
∆r j = a xj ∆x + ayj ∆y



Equation (27) can also be expressed in matrix form: ∆r = H∆p, where H is

a x1 ay1
 

 a x2 ay2 
 
H= , (28)
. . .
 

a xj ayj

and ∆p is
∆p = [∆x ∆y] T . (29)
Finally, the matrix related to GDOP is

G = ( H T H ) −1 , (30)

by which the horizontal DOP (HDOP) can be calculated as HDOP = tr ( G ).

p

3. Comparisons of Different Network Structures

In this section, we offer parameter settings in our simulations and describe the criteria
for evaluating the performance of different network structures. The performances of
different kinds of anchor deployment are also compared and analyzed in this section.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 10 of 19

3.1. Parameter Settings and Performance Evaluation Criteria

Deployment networks are evaluated using MATLAB 2023a. We consider various
symmetric SGN structures, including three to eight anchor nodes that form a circular or
star-shaped distribution. Detailed parameter settings are given in Table 1. The level of
sonar power and detective threshold can be easily achieved through modern underwater
communication modems such as [40,41]. According to Figure 6.2.2 in [34], the Noise level is
NL = 50 + 10log(16000 − 13500) = 83.979 dB. For a signal with frequency of 16 kHz, the
coverage is around 5000 m. For the circular distributed anchors, the distance between each
node and the network center is set to be 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 times of ocean depth, respectively. To
ensure reliability, simulation results are taken as the average of 10,000 runs.

Table 1. Simulation parameter settings.

Parameters Values
Sonar power Pa 30 W [40]
Detective threshold Dt 20 dB [41]
Sea state level 4
Signal frequency 13.5–16 kHz
Ocean depth 3000 m
Standard deviation of distance measurement error 0.1% × path length

The performances of SGNs are evaluated by the following three criteria: localization
service coverage, GDOP values, and localization errors, which are defined as follows.
• Localization service coverage represents the scope of location services covered by the
designed SGN networks. For any spatial coordinate, when the number of receivable
anchor signals at its location is not less than three, this coordinate is considered within
the positioning coverage range.
• GDOP values represent the distance vector amplification factor between the signal
source and the receiver by sonar ranging errors. The GDOP value offers a theoretical
description of the impact of network type on positioning accuracy. When adopting
projection techniques, the depth information can be measured by the depth sensor, so
we mainly focus on HDOP values in this paper.
• Localization error is the average distance bias between the estimated positions of
underwater vehicles and their real positions. The localization error can be computed as

Np
q
∑ p =1 ( x p − x̂ p )2 + (y p − ŷ p )2 + (z p − ẑ p )2
Per = , (31)
Np

where ( x p , y p , z p ) are real positions of underwater vehicles, ( x̂ p , ŷ p , ẑ p ) are correspond-

ing estimated positions, Np is total statistical positioning times. The simulation of
localization error can numerically provide intuitive statistical characteristics of posi-
tioning errors.

3.2. Simulation Results

It is well known that increasing the number of anchors can increase network coverage,
but it also means increasing network construction costs. Therefore, it is necessary to
utilize a small number of nodes to maximize network coverage. On the other hand,
improving network coverage does not necessarily mean that effective service quality can
be provided, so it is also necessary to evaluate quality of service, which is reflected in
positioning accuracy.

3.2.1. Coverage Performance

Figure 5 shows the coverage range performance of different SGNs with different
numbers of anchors, where in Figure 5b–d, “4c” means four anchors forming a square
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 11 of 19

distribution (circular shape), “4s” means four anchors forming a star shape. From Figure 5a,
the coverage range of the SGN expands as the number of nodes increases, and the growth
trend significantly weakens after exceeding five nodes. With less than six anchors, the
result shows that reducing the distance between the anchor and the center can increase
the coverage range, but as the number of nodes increases further, reducing the distance
between the anchor and the center reduces the coverage range. From Figure 5b–d, the
results of “3c” and “4s” indicate that adding an anchor at the network center can increase
the coverage range, and the range increase effect is related to the distance from outer
anchors to the center. According to the results of “4s” and “4c”, “5s” and “5c”, it can be
seen that under the same number of anchors, the star-shaped network has a larger coverage
range. Comparing “4s” and “5s”, the coverage improvement brought by increasing nodes
is not as significant as that of circular SGNs. For coverage performance, a star network
composed of four or five nodes is a better choice for SGN construction.

1011 Circle shape

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
distance to center: 500 m
0.8 distance to center: 1000 m
distance to center: 1500 m

0.6
3 4 5 6 7 8
number of anchors
(a) (b)
10 distance to center: 1000 m 10 distance to center: 1500 m
10 10
14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
3c 4s 4c 5s 5c 3c 4s 4c 5s 5c
number of anchors number of anchors

(c) (d)
Figure 5. Coverage of SGNs with different number of anchors (0–2000 m). (a) Coverage performance
with different circle-shaped anchors. (b–d) Comparison of coverage with different styles of SGNs
and different distances between the center and outer anchors.

3.2.2. HDOP Distribution

The purpose of SGN deployment design is to provide PNT service for underwater
vehicles, so the accuracy performance is of great importance. To evaluate the positioning
accuracy performance of different network shapes, the HDOP is shown in Figures 6 and 7
when the receiver moves around at a depth of 500 m. In Figures 6 and 7, a smaller value
indicates better positioning accuracy, because small ranging errors do not cause large
positioning errors at these positions. From Figure 6, it can be seen that as the number
of nodes increases, the area of high-quality service regions also increases. However, the
growth rate slows down when it exceeds five nodes. Though the service areas grow
when the number of nodes increases, the service quality in the surrounding areas is not
satisfactory that the colors of these areas are yellow and red. This is mainly because the
reference node positions are too concentrated or even approximated to be on the same
J.J.Mar.
Mar. Sci.
Sci. Eng. 12,25
2024,12,
Eng.2024, 25 12 of 19

straight line,
straight line, which
which makes
makes the positioning results very susceptible to sonar measurement
errors.
errors.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 6. HDOP
Figure 6. HDOP ofof different
different kinds
kinds of circular SGN with a target depth of 500 m (red dots refer to
anchor
anchor nodes).
nodes). (a–f)
(a–f) Number
Number of of anchors from 3 to 8.

Comparing
Comparing Figures
Figures 7a and 6b, it can be seen that the service coverage area is roughly
the
the same, but the high-quality
same, but the high-quality service area of the circular configuration is larger, while the
service
service quality
quality ofof the
the surrounding
surrounding areas of the star configuration is seriously deteriorating
due
due to
to the
the topological
topological issues
issues of reference anchors. When adding an anchor at the center
of
of Figure
Figure 6b6b to
to form
form aa five-point
five-point star network as shown in Figure 7b, the service coverage
becomes
becomes larger
larger and
and has
has better symmetry. By comparing Figures 7b and 6c, the high-quality
service
service areas
areas (low
(low HDOP
HDOP values) of the five-node star network and the five-node circular
network
network areare roughly
roughly equivalent,
equivalent, but the low-quality service areas of the star network are
more
more balanced, which means that the average service quality of the star shape is more
balanced, which
suitable
suitable for
for SGN.
SGN. Considering
Considering the coverage performance and economic cost factors, adding
an
an anchor
anchor atat the
the center
center of Figure 6b to form a five-point star network is a good choice for
anchor
anchor deployment.
deployment.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 13 of 19
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 13 of 19

(a) (b)
HDOPof
Figure7.7.HDOP
Figure ofdifferent
different kinds
kinds of star−shaped
shaped SGN
SGN with
with aatarget
targetdepth
depthofof500
500m.
m.(a)
(a)44anchors.
anchors.
(b) 5 anchors.
(b) 5 anchors.
3.2.3.Localization
3.2.3. Localization Error
Error
Tofurther
To furtherevaluate
evaluate the the accuracy performance
performance of of different
differentkinds
kindsofofSGNs,
SGNs,we weconduct
conduct
some simulations as shown in Figure 8, where (a), (c), (e) are results with noposition
some simulations as shown in Figure 8, where (a), (c), (e) are results with no position
constraintsof
constraints oftarget
target nodes.
nodes. (b),
(b), (d),
(d), (f)
(f) are
are results
results in
in which
whichthe theposition
positionof ofthe
thetarget
targetnode
node
locates around the center of the network topology when it is projected onto theseafloor.
locates around the center of the network topology when it is projected onto the seafloor.
Theroot
The rootmean
mean square
square error
error (RMSE)
(RMSE) of of localization
localization is is adopted
adoptedin inthis
thispaper
papertotoevaluate
evaluate
the accuracy performance. From Figure 8a,c,e, localization error increasesobviously
the accuracy performance. From Figure 8a,c,e, localization error increases obviouslyasas
anchornodes
anchor nodesincrease.
increase. ThisThis is
is because
because when
when thethe target
target node
nodeisislocated
locatedatatthe
theedge
edgeofofthe
the
coverage range, the network structure of the anchor node is not good, so
coverage range, the network structure of the anchor node is not good, so although the targetalthough the target
nodecan
node canbebelocated,
located, itit cannot
cannot guarantee
guarantee the the quality
quality of of positioning
positioningservice.
service.IfIfwe
wefocus
focusonon
target nodes near the perpendicular in the network topology with difference depth,the
target nodes near the perpendicular in the network topology with difference depth, the
positioningerror
positioning error can
can be be reduced
reduced according
according to to Figure
Figure 8b,d,f.
8b,d,f. Comparing
Comparing“4s” “4s”with
with“4c”,
“4c”,
“5s” with “5c” in Figure 8b,d,f, adding an anchor in the middle of SGN can significantly
“5s” with “5c” in Figure 8b,d,f, adding an anchor in the middle of SGN can significantly
improve the quality of positioning services in the central area as shown in Figure 8b,d,f,
improve the quality of positioning services in the central area as shown in Figure 8b,d,f,
which further indicates that the “5s” star topology is a network configuration with good
which further indicates that the “5s” star topology is a network configuration with good
overall performance.
overall performance.
distance to center: 500 m distance to center: 500 m
120 distance to center: 500 m 10 distance to center: 500 m
120 10
100
100 8
80 8
80
6
60
6
60
40 4
40 4
20
20 2
0 2
0
-20 0
-20 3c 4c 5c 6c 7c 8c 4s 5s 0 3c 4c 5c 6c 7c 8c 4s 5s
3c 4c number
5c 6c of7c
anchors
8c 4s 5s 3c 4c number
5c 6cof anchors
7c 8c 4s 5s
(a)anchors
number of number of(b)
anchors
(a)
distance to center: 1000 m (b)
distance to center: 1000 m
60 10
distance to center: 1000 m distance to center: 1000 m
60 10
50
8
50
40 8
40 6
30
6
30
20 4
20 4
10
10 2
0
2
0
-10 0
3c 4c 5c 6c 7c 8c 4s 5s 3c 4c 5c 6c 7c 8c 4s 5s
-10 number of anchors 0 number of anchors
3c 4c 5c 6c 7c 8c 4s 5s 3c 4c 5c 6c 7c 8c 4s 5s
(c)anchors
number of number of(d)
anchors
distance to center: 1500 m distance to center: 1500 m
(c) (d)
Figure
40
8. Cont.
distance to center: 1500 m
12
distance to center: 1500 m
Figure 8. Cont.
40 12
10
30
10
8
30
20 8
6

20 6
4
10
4
 30

20 4

10
2
0

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 -10 0 14 of 19

3c 4c 5c 6c 7c 8c 4s 5s 3c 4c 5c 6c 7c 8c 4s 5s
number of anchors number of anchors
(c) (d)
distance to center: 1500 m distance to center: 1500 m
40 12

10
30
8

20 6

4
10
2

0 0
3c 4c 5c 6c 7c 8c 4s 5s 3c 4c 5c 6c 7c 8c 4s 5s
number of anchors number of anchors

(e) (f)
Figure 8. Simulation tests of localization accuracy. (a,c,e): no position constraints of target nodes.
(b,d,f): position of the target node locates around the center of the network topology when it is
projected onto seafloor.

3.2.4. Non-Flat Seafloor Situation

In fact, the seabed terrain is complex and diverse, making it difficult to meet completely
flat conditions. In this section, we consider a “stepped” terrain as shown in Figure 9, and
positions of five anchor nodes are given in Table 2, where Scenario 1 is when ∆z = 200 m
and Scenario 2 is when ∆z = 300 m.

x
Anchor nodes

z Z=3000
z

z
Figure 9. Deployment of anchor nodes on a non-flat seabed.

Table 2. Positions of anchor nodes.

Scenario 1: Circular Topology

Items Anchor 1 Anchor 2 Anchor 3 Anchor 4 Anchor 5
X 980 309 −793 −793 309
Y 0 951 576 −576 −951
Z 3200 3000 2800 2800 3000
Scenario 1: Star Topology
Items Anchor 1 Anchor 2 Anchor 3 Anchor 4 Anchor 5
X 1487 464 −−1203 −1203 464
Y 0 1427 874 −874 −1427
Z 3200 3000 2800 2800 3000
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 15 of 19
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 15 of 19

Table 2. Cont.
Table 2. Cont.
Scenario 2: Circular Topology
Scenario 2: Circular Topology
Items Anchor 1 Anchor 2 Anchor 3 Anchor 4 Anchor 5
Items Anchor 1 Anchor 2 Anchor 3 Anchor 4 Anchor 5
X 1487 0 −1487 0 0
X 1487 0 −1487 0 0
Y 0 1500 0 −1500 0
Y 0 1500 0 −1500 0
Z 3200 3000 2800 2800 3000
Z 3200 3000 2800 2800 3000
Scenario 2: Star Topology
Scenario 2: Star Topology
Items Anchor 1 Anchor 2 Anchor 3 Anchor 4 Anchor 5
Items Anchor 1 Anchor 2 Anchor 3 Anchor 4 Anchor 5
X 1470 0 −1470 0 0
X 1470 0 −1470 0 0
Y 0 1500 0 −1500 0
Y 0 1500 0 −1500 0
Z 3300 3000 2700 2800 3000
Z 3300 3000 2700 2800 3000

Figure 10 gives the HDOP simulation results of circular and star-shaped SGN with five
Figure
anchor 10 gives
nodes, and the the∆z
HDOP
is set simulation
to be 0, 200,results of circular and
300, respectively. star-shaped
In Figure SGN
10a,c,e, the with five
maximum
anchor nodes, and the ∆z is set to be 0, 200, 300, respectively. In Figure 10a,c,e, the maximum
value of HDOP increases as ∆z grows, indicating that a non-flat terrain deteriorates the
value of HDOP increases as ∆z grows, indicating that a non-flat terrain deteriorates the
positioning performance around the service area. This phenomenon also occurs in the
positioning performance around the service area. This phenomenon also occurs in the
star-shaped topology according to Figure 10b,d,f. Comparing Figure 10d,f with Figure 10b,
star-shaped topology according to Figure 10b,d,f. Comparing Figure 10d,f with Figure 10b,
it can be seen that the symmetry in the x-axis direction is disrupted, and the low HDOP
it can be seen that the symmetry in the x-axis direction is disrupted, and the low HDOP
value shifts towards the direction of terrain descent. If symmetrical service quality needs
value shifts towards the direction of terrain descent. If symmetrical service quality needs
to be maintained, it may be necessary to achieve it through methods such as adjusting
to be maintained, it may be necessary to achieve it through methods such as adjusting
node spacing (how to adjust the node spacing is beyond the scope of this article, and we
node spacing (how to adjust the node spacing is beyond the scope of this article, and we
will conduct further research in future work). However, by comparing the HDOP value
will conduct further research in future work). However, by comparing the HDOP value
between circular topology and star-shaped topology, the high-quality service areas (low
between circular topology and star-shaped topology, the high-quality service areas (low
HDOP values) of the five-node star network and the five-node circular network are roughly
HDOP values) of the five-node star network and the five-node circular network are roughly
equivalent, but
equivalent, but the
the low-quality
low-qualityservice
serviceareas
areasofofthe
thestar
starnetwork
networkare aremore
morebalanced,
balanced,which
which
also means that the average service quality of the star shape is more suitable
also means that the average service quality of the star shape is more suitable for SGN. for SGN.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
10. Cont.
Figure 10. Cont.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 16 of 19
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 16 of 19

(e) (f)
Figure10.
Figure HDOP of
10. HDOP of different
different kinds of SGN on non−flat seabed with target
target depth
depth of
of 500
500 m.
m. (a,c,e)
(a,c,e)Cir-
Cir-
cular topology
cular topology with ∆z =
with ∆z = 0, 200, 300 m. (b,d,f) Star−shaped topology with ∆z
topology with ∆z == 0,
0,200,
200,300
300 m.
m.

Table 33 offers
Table offers accuracy
accuracy results under 10,000 tests for each situation.
situation. The
The result
result shows
shows
thatthe
that the accuracy
accuracy performance
performance is not affected by the position change
change ofof anchor
anchor nodes,
nodes,which
which
is mainly
is mainly because
because thethe change
change in anchor nodes is symmetric. For For areas
areas with
with deteriorating
deteriorating
positioning and
positioning and areas
areas with
with improved positioning, the volume is is equivalent,
equivalent, so
so the
the overall
overall
error statistics
error statistics remain
remain unchanged. This situation may also occur occur where
where the
the seabed
seabed isis
inclined and
inclined and isis symmetric
symmetric in relation to the center of SGN topology.
topology.

Table 3.
Table Accuracy performance
3. Accuracy performance of
of anchor
anchor nodes
nodes on
on aa non-flat
non-flat seabed.
seabed.

Standard Deviation
Standard Deviation of
of Standard
Standard Deviation
Deviationofof
Average Localization
Average Localization Average
Average Localization
Localization
Positioning Error
Positioning Error Positioning
Positioning Error
Errorwith
with
Scenario
Scenario Error without Position
Error without Position Error
Error with
with Position
Position
without Position
without Position Position
Position Con-
Con-
Constraints (m)
Constraints (m) Constraints
Constraints (m)
(m)
Constraints (m)
Constraints (m) straints
straints (m)
(m)
Circulartopology
Circular topology
7.9798
7.9798 6.6530
6.6530 2.8181
2.8181 2.0711
2.0711
when∆z
when ∆z= =00mm
Startopology
Star topologywhen
when
7.9601
7.9601 7.2190
7.2190 1.9772
1.9772 1.3244
1.3244
∆z=
∆z =00m m
Circulartopology
Circular topology
8.0957
8.0957 6.8508
6.8508 2.8146
2.8146 2.0039
2.0039
when ∆z
when ∆z = 200m
=200 m
Startopology
Star topologywhen
when
7.5988
7.5988 7.2533
7.2533 2.0034
2.0034 1.3148
1.3148
∆z = 200
∆z = 200 m m
Circular topology
Circular topology 7.9110
7.9110 6.4076
6.4076 2.8114
2.8114 2.0311
2.0311
when∆z
when ∆z= 300m
=300 m
Startopology
Star topologywhen
when
7.8054
7.8054 6.9600
6.9600 1.9971
1.9971 1.3023
1.3023
∆z = 300
∆z = 300 m m

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
SGN is
SGN is the
the foundation
foundation for
for building
building an
an underwater
underwater PNT
PNT system.
system. ToTo achieve
achieve wide
wide
coverage and good positioning service of SGNs, we focus on the network design of
coverage and good positioning service of SGNs, we focus on the network design of aa
single set of reference stations in this paper. We propose several deployment plans for local
single set of reference stations in this paper. We propose several deployment plans for local
SGN, and then analyze their service quality indicators, including the serving coverage and
SGN, and then analyze their service quality indicators, including the serving coverage and
accuracy performance for localization. To offer a suitable design of a local SGN, we propose
accuracy performance for localization. To offer a suitable design of a local SGN, we propose
several deployment strategies and compare their coverage and accuracy performance.
several deployment strategies and compare their coverage and accuracy performance.
To make the design more realistic, we consider the stratification effect of sound speed
To make the design more realistic, we consider the stratification effect of sound speed
and combine it with the active sonar equation to calculate the coverage characteristics
and combine it with the active sonar equation to calculate the coverage characteristics
where we derive the sound trajectory as a function of the initial grazing angle. To evaluate
where we derive the sound trajectory as a function of the initial grazing angle. To evaluate
the performance of each topology of SGN, we compare their coverage range, HDOP and
the performance of each topology of SGN, we compare their coverage range, HDOP and
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 17 of 19

accuracy performance of positioning tests. In terms of overall performance, we believe that

the star five-node topology is a better structure under sufficient economic conditions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, W.H. and T.X.; methodology, W.H. and J.Z.; software,
W.H. and R.Q.; validation, W.H. and R.Q.; formal analysis, W.H.; investigation, T.X.; resources, W.H.;
data curation, W.H. and R.Q.; writing—original draft preparation, W.H.; writing—review and editing,
W.H., R.Q., J.Z. and T.X.; visualization, W.H.; supervision, W.H.; project administration, T.X.; funding
acquisition, T.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was funded by Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2023QF128),
Laoshan Laboratory (LSKJ202205104), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2022M722990), Qing-
dao Postdoctoral Science Foundation (QDBSH20220202061), National Natural Science Foundation of
China (62271459), National Defense Science and Technology Innovation Special Zone Project: Marine
Science and Technology Collaborative Innovation Center (22-05-CXZX-04-01-02), Central University
Basic Research Fund of China, Ocean University of China (202313036).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

SGN Seafloor geodetic network

GNSS Global navigation satellite system
GPS Global positioning system
AOA Angle of arrival
TOA Time of arrival
TDOA Time difference of arrival
RSS Received signal strength
GDOP Geometric dilution precision
HDOP Horizontal dilution of precision

References
1. Yang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Sun, D.; Xu, T.; Xue, S.; Han, Y.; Zeng, A. Seafloor Geodetic Network Establishment and Key Technologies. Sci.
China Earth Sci. 2020, 50, 10. [CrossRef]
2. Usaf, L.C.J.W.Y. A Novel Method for Extending GPS to Underwater Applications. Navigation 1991, 38, 263–271.
3. Tan, H.P.; Diamant, R.; Seah, W.K.G.; Waldmeyer, M. A survey of techniques and challenges in underwater localization. Ocean.
Eng. 2011, 38, 1663–1676. [CrossRef]
4. Qu, F.; Wang, S.; Wu, Z.; Liu, Z. A Survey of Ranging Algorithms and Localization Schemes in Underwater Acoustic Sensor
Network. Chin. Commun. 2016, 13, 66–81.
5. Luo, J.; Fan, L.; Wu, S.; Yan, X. Research on Localization Algorithms Based on Acoustic Communication for Underwater Sensor
Networks. Sensors 2018, 18, 67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Luo, J.; Yang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Chen, Y. Localization Algorithm for Underwater Sensor Network: A Review. IEEE Internet Things J.
2021, 8, 13126–13144. [CrossRef]
7. Jensen, F.B.; Kuperman, W.A.; Porter, M.B.; Schmidt, H. Computational Ocean Acoustics; Springer Science & Business Media:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; Chapter 1, pp. 3–4. [CrossRef]
8. Huang, H.; Zheng, Y.R. AoA assisted localization for underwater Ad-Hoc sensor networks. In Proceedings of the OCEANS 2016
MTS/IEEE Monterey, Monterey, CA, USA, 19–23 September 2016; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
9. Beck, A.; Stoica, P.; Li, J. Exact and Approximate Solutions of Source Localization Problems. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2008,
56, 1770–1778. [CrossRef]
10. Carevic, D. Automatic Estimation of Multiple Target Positions and Velocities Using Passive TDOA Measurements of Transients.
IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2007, 55, 424–436. [CrossRef]
11. Chandrasekhar, V.; Seah, W. An Area Localization Scheme for Underwater Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the OCEANS
2006—Asia Pacific, Singapore, 16–19 May 2006; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 18 of 19

12. Cheng, X.; Shu, H.; Liang, Q.; Du, D.H.C. Silent Positioning in Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.
2008, 57, 1756–1766. [CrossRef]
13. Liu, B.; Chen, H.; Zhong, Z.; Poor, H.V. Asymmetrical Round Trip Based Synchronization-Free Localization in Large-Scale
Underwater Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 2010, 9, 3532–3542. [CrossRef]
14. Carroll, P.; Mahmood, K.; Zhou, S.; Zhou, H.; Xu, X.; Cui, J.H. On-Demand Asynchronous Localization for Underwater Sensor
Networks. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2014, 62, 3337–3348. [CrossRef]
15. Yan, J.; Zhang, X.; Luo, X.; Wang, Y.; Chen, C.; Guan, X. Asynchronous Localization With Mobility Prediction for Underwater
Acoustic Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2018, 67, 2543–2556. [CrossRef]
16. Zhou, Z.; Cui, J.H.; Zhou, S. Efficient localization for large-scale underwater sensor networks. Ad Hoc Netw. 2010, 8, 267–279.
[CrossRef]
17. Zhang, S.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, M.; Fan, Z. A top-down positioning scheme for underwater wireless sensor networks. Sci. China Inf.
Sci. 2014, 57, 1–10. [CrossRef]
18. Diamant, R.; Lampe, L. Underwater Localization with Time-Synchronization and Propagation Speed Uncertainties. IEEE Trans.
Mob. Comput. 2013, 12, 1257–1269. [CrossRef]
19. Liu, J.; Wang, Z.; Cui, J.H.; Zhou, S.; Yang, B. A Joint Time Synchronization and Localization Design for Mobile Underwater
Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2016, 15, 530–543. [CrossRef]
20. Zhang, B.; Wang, H.; Zheng, L.; Wu, J.; Zhuang, Z. Joint Synchronization and Localization for Underwater Sensor Networks
Considering Stratification Effect. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 26932–26943. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, T. Underwater Anchor-AUV Localization Geometries With an Isogradient Sound Speed Profile:
A CRLB-Based Optimality Analysis. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 2018, 17, 8228–8238. [CrossRef]
22. Zhang, L.; Zhang, T.; Shin, H.S.; Xu, X. Efficient Underwater Acoustical Localization Method Based On Time Difference and
Bearing Measurements. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2021, 70, 1–16. [CrossRef]
23. Akkaya, K.; Newell, A. Self-deployment of sensors for maximized coverage in underwater acoustic sensor networks. Comput.
Commun. 2009, 32, 1233–1244. [CrossRef]
24. Nie, J.; Li, D.; Han, Y. Optimization of Multiple Gateway Deployment for Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks. Comput. Sci.
Inf. Syst. 2011, 8, 1073–1095. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, F.; Wang, D.; Liu, J. Traffic-Aware Relay Node Deployment: Maximizing Lifetime for Data Collection Wireless Sensor
Networks. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 2011, 22, 1415–1423. [CrossRef]
26. Han, G.; Zhang, C.; Shu, L.; Sun, N.; Li, Q. A Survey on Deployment Algorithms in Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks. Int. J.
Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2013, 9, 314049. [CrossRef]
27. Tuna, G.; Gungor, V.C. A survey on deployment techniques, localization algorithms, and research challenges for underwater
acoustic sensor networks. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 2017, 30, e3350. [CrossRef]
28. Iqbal, Z.; Lee, H.N. Deployment strategy analysis for underwater cooperative wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the
2015 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), Jeju, Republic of Korea,
28–30 October 2015; pp. 699–703. [CrossRef]
29. Wang, Z.; Wang, B. A novel node sinking algorithm for 3D coverage and connectivity in underwater sensor networks. Ad Hoc
Netw. 2017, 56, 43–55. [CrossRef]
30. Zhang, H.; Wang, S.L.; Sun, H.X. Research on water surface gateway deployment in underwater acoustic sensor networks. In
Proceedings of the OCEANS 2016 MTS/IEEE Monterey, Monterey, CA, USA, 19–23 September 2016; pp. 1–7. [CrossRef]
31. Liu, J.; Guan, W.; Han, G.; Cui, J.H.; Fiondella, L.; Al-Bzoor, M. A Dynamic Surface Gateway Placement Scheme for Mobile
Underwater Networks. Sensors 2019, 19, 1993. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Xu, C.; Song, S.; Liu, J.; Xu, Y.; Che, S.; Lin, B.; Xu, G. An Efficient Deployment Scheme with Network Performance Modeling for
Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Internet Things J. 2023, 1. [CrossRef]
33. Nguyen, N.H.; Doğançay, K. Optimal Geometry Analysis for Multistatic TOA Localization. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2016,
64, 4180–4193. [CrossRef]
34. Wang, D.; Shang, E. Underwater Acoustics, 2nd ed.; China Science Publishing and Media Ltd.: Beijing, China, 2013; Chapter 3, pp.
105–106.
35. Domingo, M.; Prior, R. Energy Analysis of Routing Protocal for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks. Comput. Commun. 2007,
31, 1227–1238. [CrossRef]
36. Han, G.; Zhang, C.; Shu, L.; Rodrigues, J.J.P.C. Impacts of Deployment Strategies on Localization Performance in Underwater
Acoustic Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2015, 62, 1725–1733. [CrossRef]
37. Huang, W.; Li, D.; Jiang, P. Underwater Sound Speed Inversion by Joint Artificial Neural Network and Ray Theory. In Proceedings
of the Thirteenth ACM International Conference on Underwater Networks & Systems (WUWNet’18), Shenzhen, China, 3–5
December 2018; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
38. Huang, W.; Zhang, H.; Meng, K.; Gao, F.; Sun, W.; Shu, J.; Xu, T.; Li, D. Fast Ray-Tracing-Based Precise Underwater Acoustic
Localization without Prior Acknowledgment of Target Depth. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2310.08201.
39. Yang, X.; Wang, F.; Liu, W.; Xiao, W.; Ye, X. A Layout Method of Space-Based Pseudolite System Based on GDOP Geometry. Chin.
J. Electron. 2023, 32, 1050–1058. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 25 19 of 19

40. Ju, J.; Liu, P. A transmitter of underwater acoustics communication module based on class D audio amplifier. In Proceedings of
the 2022 Western China Acoustics Academic Conference, Singapore, 22–27 May 2022; pp. 431–434.
41. Ye, Z.; Yan, S.; Yang, B. MIMO-OFDM Underwater Acoustic Communication Receiver Based on Intercarrier Interference Depth
Estimation. J. Electron. Inf. Technol. 2023, 45, 2519–2527.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.