CHAPTER 4

CHARACTERIZATION OF ACOUSTIC CHANNEL FOR

UNDERWATER WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS

The chapter presents an analysis of changes in characteristics like attenuation, Transmission

Loss and power spectral density of noise with respect to the deflection in the frequency of
acoustic signals in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks. The effects of factors like depth,
temperature and salinity of sea have been included for calculating the propagation speed of
acoustic signals. Results are found to be satisfactory and reasonable to be used in modelling
energy efficient Underwater Wireless Sensor Network in the following chapters.

4.1. ACOUSTIC LINK

The most efficient and feasible way to send and receive data in underwater environment is by
means of acoustic signals or links due to low attenuation (signal reduction) of sound in water.
Acoustics is the propagation of sound in water and interaction of mechanical waves that
constitute with water along with its boundaries.

Because high frequency signals have the luxury of large bandwidth at shorter
distances, high frequency electromagnetic signals cannot penetrate and propagate deep in
underwater environments. The electromagnetic properties of water tend to resist their
propagation and cause severe attenuation [1].

The other options like radio and optical waves do not work well underwater. Radio
waves can travel for longer distances but due to salty characteristics of water, they work at
very low frequencies and thus, require large antennae for communications. Optical waves
suffer from scattering and require high precision of the pointing beam as well [2]. Optical
waves are not preferred for long distance applications because they require an accurate Line
of Sight (LOS), which is extremely difficult to establish due to strong backscattering from
suspending particles [3].

Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 49
4.2. UNDERWATER ACOUSTIC CHANNEL CHARATERIZATION
The underwater acoustic channel characteristics are analyzed in this section [4].

4.2.1. Attenuation and Transmission Loss

The Transmission Loss (TL) can be defined as a decrement in sound intensity throughout the
path from source to destination [5]. Thorp formula [6], defines TL of a signal as:

TL  SS    10
3
(4.1)

where attenuation factor,

(4.2)

Spherical Spreading (SS) factor,

SS  20log r (4.3)
Here, r is the range in meters and f is frequency in kHz.

A well precise and accurate expression for attenuation factor has also been presented
as [7],

(4.4)

The change in attenuation factor and correspondingly in TL for different frequencies

from both the formulas has been observed in Table 4.1.

Figure 4.1 in the form of a graph depicts how the attenuation factor varies with the
change in frequency. The value of attenuation factor increases as the frequency is increased
from 10 kHz to 40 kHz.

Equation (4.1) aids in finding TL from the values of α in Equation (4.2) and (4.4). The
value of range r is chosen as 100 meters while calculating the SS factor.

Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 50
 Table 4.1. Attenuation Factor

S.No. Frequency (f) in kHz Attenuation Factor (α) in db/km More precise Attenuation
Factor (α)in db/km

1 10 1.1565 1.1870

2 15 2.3985 2.4630

3 20 4.0208 4.1330

4 25 5.9299 6.1040

5 30 8.0298 8.2800

6 35 10.2319 10.5710

7 40 12.4606 12.9030

Figure 4.1. Attenuation Factor with varying Frequency

Table 4.2 shows the computed values of TL, from both the expressions of attenuation
factor. Figure 4.2 concludes that TL varies in the same manner as attenuation factor when
frequency is increased.

Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 51
 Table 4.2. Transmission Loss

S. No. Frequency (f) in kHz Transmission Loss (TL) in db More precise Transmission
Loss(TL) in db

1 10 40.0011 40.0012

2 15 40.0023 40.0024

3 20 40.0040 40.0041

4 25 40.0059 40.0061

5 30 40.0080 40.0082

6 35 40.0102 40.0105

7 40 40.0124 40.0129

Figure 4.2. Transmission Loss with varying Frequency

4.2.2. Noise
In an ocean environment, the power spectral density of the Ambient Noise (N) can be
calculated by summing up the following noise components:

Turbulence Noise (Nt), Shipping Noise (Ns), Waves noise (Nw) and Thermal Noise
(Nth) [8]. These noise components can be computed individually as:

Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 52
 10log Nt  f   17  30log f
(4.5)
10log Ns  f   40  20  s  0.5  26log f
(4.6)
1
10log N w  f   50  7.5w 2  20log f  40log  f  0.4  (4.7)
10log Nth  f   15  20log f
(4.8)
Adding them, the overall noise power spectral density for a given frequency is then given by:

N  f   Nt  f   Ns  f   Nw  f   Nth  f  (4.9)

Individual noise components are computed by changing the frequency from 10 kHz to
40 kHz. In Equation (4.6), s is the shipping factor which ranges from 0 to 1 for low to high
activities, respectively. Here, s is equated to 1, considering the high activities. The parameter
w in Equation (4.7) is the wind speed, taken as 20km/hr or 5.55 m/s. Table 4.3 shows the
total value of N after adding the four components of noise. The power spectral density of
ambient noise is in decibels reµ Pa per Hz as a function of f in kHz, represented as N(f).
Figure 4.3 shows that its value increases with the increase in frequency.

Table 4.3. Power Spectral Density of Ambient Noise

S. No. Frequency (f) in kHz Power spectral density of Ambient Noise (N) in
decibels reµ Pa per Hz

1 10 126.1920

2 15 131.3771

3 20 137.7633

4 25 145.4879

5 30 154.4649

6 35 165.4462

7 40 177.6727

Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 53
 Figure 4.3. Power Spectral Density of Ambient Noise with varying Frequency

4.2.3. Propagation Speed

The cause of multipath in underwater channels is the reflection of wave at the surface, bottom
or at any object and by sound refraction in water [9]. The propagation speed of an acoustic
signal underwater is approximately 1500 m/sec, but the actual value depends on the salinity,
temperature, depth and other factors [4].

A nine term equation [10] has been defined for calculating the propagation speed,
based on salinity, temperature and depth of the sea.

C  1448.96  4.591T  5.304  10 2 T 2  2.374  10 4 T 3

1.340  S  35   1.630  10 2 D  1.675  10 7 D 2  1.025
10 2 T  S  35   7.139  10 13 D 3
(4.10)

As the depth of sea water increases, the change in temperature of water can be
observed in degree Celsius, with respect to the mid lat summer season and the salinity of
water is in parts per thousand [5]. Table 4.4 shows that as the depth of sea is varied from 0
meters to 1500 meters, the temperature decreases while going deep into the water. Similarly,
the salinity of sea water is more near the surface as compared to that at deep sea bottom.

As per the Equation (4.10), the propagation speed of the acoustic signal under the
water, decreases with the increase in depth. Results are tabulated in Table 4.5 and plotted in
Figure 4.4.

Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 54
 Table 4.4. Temperature and Salinity

S. No. Depth (D) in meters Temperature (T) in degree Salinity (S) in ppt
Celsius
1 0 18 0.03745

2 50 15 0.03602

3 100 10 0.03534

4 500 8 0.03511

5 1000 6 0.03490

6 1500 4 0.03405

Table 4.5. Propagation Speed

S. No. Depth (D) in meters Propagation Speed (C) in m/s

1 0 1475.39

2 50 1466.03

3 100 1448.16

4 500 1446.62

5 1000 1446.41

6 1500 1445.51

Figure 4.4. Propagation Speed with varying Depth

Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 55
 It may be observed from the results that initially the change in the speed is very large
but at greater depths the variation is very low.

4.2.4. Signal to Noise Ratio

Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) is stated as the signal strength relative to the background noise.
In UWSNs, SNR of a transmitted signal by a node is expressed in terms of Source Level
(SL), TL, Ambient Noise or Noise Level (N or NL) and Directivity Index (DI) [11]. SNR in
dB is expressed as:
SNR  SL  TL  NL  DI (4.11)

Here, SL is in dB re µPa. It depends upon Transmission Power Intensity (It) and

Transmission Power (Pt), expressed as:

 It 
SL  10log  18 
 0.067  10  (4.12)

Given the value of Pt, It of an underwater signal at 1 meter from the source can be obtained
for the shallow water in watts/m2 through the following expression [12]:

 Pt 
It    (4.13)
 2 1m  D 

While for deep water it is given as:

 Pt 
It    (4.14)
 4 1m  D 

Here, D is depth in meters.

TL is same as expressed in Equation (4.1), DI is set to zero (because we assume omni-

directional hydrophones). NL is expressed in Equation (4.9).

Table 4.6 shows the result of SNR with varying frequency and constant range of 50
meters, depth being 200 meters, shipping factor taken as 0.5, wind speed as 6 m/s. The value
of power for shallow water is assumed to be 2 watts while for deep water as 30 watts. As
shown in Figure 4.5, SNR of deep water is larger as compared to SNR of shallow water.

Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 56
 Table 4.6. Signal to Noise Ratio

S. No. Frequency (f) in kHz SNR of shallow water in dB SNR of deep water in dB

1 10 103.2 111.9

2 15 119.2 127.9

3 20 95.97 104.7

4 25 91.74 100.5

5 30 89.19 97.94

6 35 87.4 96.15

7 40 86.03 94.78

8 45 84.94 93.69

9 50 84.05 92.8

Signal to Noise Ratio V/S Frequency

130
SNR for shallow water
125 SNR for deep water

120

115
Signal to Noise Ratio(dB)

110

105

100

95

90

85

80
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency(kHz)

Figure 4.5. Signal to Noise Ratio for Shallow Water and Deep Water with varying Frequency

4.2.5. Propagation Delay

Propagation delay is the time taken by the signal to transmit from sender to receiver node in
the network. As depicted in Equation (4.15), propagation delay depends upon the distance
between two nodes and speed of sound in underwater [13].

d
Tp 
c (4.15)

Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 57
Here, d is distance between two nodes in meters.

c is speed of sound in meters/second.

Table 4.7 shows the value of propagation delay at different distance between nodes.
Figure 4.6 depicts the relation between propagation delay and depth on keeping the distance
between nodes as 100 meters. Similarly, Figure 4.7 shows the same tradeoff when the
distance between nodes in increased to 200 meters.

Table 4.7. Propagation Delay

S. No. Depth (D) in Sound Speed (c) Propagation Delay at 100 Propagation Delay at 200
meters in m/s meter distance in seconds meter distance in seconds

1 0 1475 0.06778 0.13555

2 50 1466 0.06821 0.13642

3 100 1448 0.06905 0.13810

4 500 1447 0.06913 0.13825

5 1000 1446 0.06914 0.13827

6 1500 1446 0.06916 0.13832

Propogation Delay v/s Depth

0.0694

0.0692

0.069
Propogation Delay (seconds)

0.0688

0.0686

0.0684

0.0682

0.068

0.0678

0.0676
0 500 1000 1500
Depth (meters)

Figure 4.6. Propagation Delay with varying Depth for 100m Distance between Two Nodes

Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 58
 Propogation Delay v/s Depth
0.139

0.1385

Propogation Delay (seconds)

0.138

0.1375

0.137

0.1365

0.136

0.1355
0 500 1000 1500
Depth (meters)

Figure 4.7. Propagation Delay with varying Depth for 200m Distance between Two Nodes

The results show that the propagation delay increases with the increasing depth and
distance between the nodes of network in under the water.

4.3. CONCLUSION
Underwater Wireless Sensor Network has been characterized. It has been shown that as
frequency is increased, loss is increased. The same is true for noise also. However, the speed
of acoustic signal decreases with the increase in depth. The characterization will help in
modelling an efficient Underwater Wireless Sensor Network. The same equations have been
considered in the further work done. The next chapter focuses on implementing network and
energy model for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks and moreover to developing energy
efficient routing protocols for the same category of networks.

REFERENCES

[1] Qureshi, Umair Mujtaba, et al. "RF path and absorption loss estimation for underwater
wireless sensor networks in different water environments." Sensors 16.6 (2016): 1-15.

[2] Akyildiz, Ian F., Dario Pompili, and Tommaso Melodia. "Challenges for efficient
communication in underwater acoustic sensor networks." ACM Sigbed Review 1.2
(2004): 3-8.
Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 59
[3] Lanbo, Liu, Zhou Shengli, and Cui Jun‐Hong. "Prospects and problems of wireless
communication for underwater sensor networks." Wireless Communications and Mobile
Computing 8.8 (2008): 977-994.

[4] Climent, Salvador, et al. "Underwater acoustic wireless sensor networks: advances and
future trends in physical, MAC and routing layers." Sensors 14.1 (2014): 795-833.

[5] Llor, Jesús, and Manuel P. Malumbres. "Modelling underwater wireless sensor
networks." Intech Open (2010): 1-20.

[6] Urick, Robert J. Principles of underwater sound for engineers. Tata McGraw-Hill
Education, 1967.

[7] Berkhovskikh, L., and Yu Lysanov. Fundamentals of Ocean Acoustics. Springer, 1982.

[8] R.Coates. Underwater Acoustic Systems. Wiley, 1989.

[9] Stojanovic, Milica, and James Preisig. "Underwater acoustic communication channels:
Propagation models and statistical characterization." IEEE Communications
Magazine 47.1 (2009): 84-89.

[10] Mackenzie, Kenneth V. "Nine‐term equation for sound speed in the oceans." The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 70.3 (1981): 807-812.

[11] Felamban, Muhamad, Basem Shihada, and Kamran Jamshaid. "Optimal node placement
in underwater wireless sensor networks." Proceedings of the 27th International
Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications. IEEE, 2013.

[12] Domingo, Mari Carmen, and Rui Prior. "Energy analysis of routing protocols for
underwater wireless sensor networks." Computer Communications 31.6 (2008): 1227-
1238.

[13] Javaid, Nadeem, et al. "Chain-based communication in cylindrical underwater wireless

sensor networks." Sensors 15.2 (2015): 3625-3649.
Modelling Energy Efficient Secure Communication in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Page 60