Você está na página 1de 55
























The need for underwater wireless communications exists in applications such as
remote control in off-shore oil industry, pollution monitoring in environmental systems,
collection of scientific data recorded at ocean-bottom stations, speech transmission
between divers, and mapping of the ocean floor for detection of objects, as well as for the
discovery of new resources. Wireless underwater communications can be established by
transmission of acoustic waves.
Underwater communications, which once were exclusively military, are extending into
commercial fields. The possibility to maintain signal transmission, but eliminate physical
connection of tethers, enables gathering of data from submerged instruments without
human intervention, and unobstructed operation of unmanned or autonomous underwater
vehicles (UUVs , AUVs).
Underwater communications in general mainly gets affected due to
Channel Variations
Channel variations are variations in: - Temperature - Salinity of water - pH of water Depth of water column or pressure and - Surface/bottom roughness.
Multipath Propagation The channel can be considered as a wave guide and due to the
reflections at surface and bottom we have the consequence of multipath propagation of
the signal.
Attenuation Acoustic energy is partly transformed into heat and lost due to sound
scattering by inhomogeneities.
Doppler Shift - Due to the movement of the water surface, the ray getting reflected from
surface can be seen as a ray actually getting transmitted from a moving transmitter, and
thereby, having Doppler shift in the received. When the receiver and transmitter are
moving with respect to each other, the emitted signal will either be compressed or
expanded at the receiver. Thereby, Doppler effect is observed.
Channel variations and multipath propagation keep a lot of hurdles for the achievement
of high data rates and robust communication links. Moreover, the increasing absorption
towards higher frequencies limits the usable bandwidth typically to only a few kHz at
large distances.
The channel has been modeled by considering multipath propagation, surface and bottom
reflection coefficients. In order to achieve high data rates it is natural to employ
bandwidth efficient modulation. In our case Quadrature Phase-Shift Keying (QPSK,


which is equivalent to 4-QAM) modulation techniques have been used for transmitter and
A random bit generator is employed as the bit source. The transmitter converts the bits
into QPSK symbols and the output from transmitter is fed into Underwater Acoustic
Channel. The receiver block takes the output from the channel, estimates timing and
phase offset, and demodulates the received QPSK symbols into information bits.
The QPSK modulation technique is extensively being used in several applications like
CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) cellular service, wireless local loop, Iridium (a
voice/data satellite system) and DVB-S (Digital Video Broadcasting-Satellite). In our
case the idea of receiver design has been taken from these applications.
We have considered in depth the channel variations and multipath propagation as our
investigation. Thus we present a reliable simulation environment for underwater acoustic
communication applications (reducing the need of sea trails) that models the sound
channel by incorporating multipath propagation, surface and bottom reflection






transmitter/receiver device employing Quadrature Phase-Shift





Keying (QPSK)

modulation techniques.
To express the quality of the simulation tool various simulation results for exemplary
scenes are presented. In the following, chapters 2 and 3 describe completely about
underwater acoustic channel, its variations and effects, the multipath propagation
phenomenon, the channel design, etc. Chapters 4 and 5 present a detailed description
about the QPSK modulation techniques used in this, and the complete communication
part of the system.



2. Fundamentals of Ocean acoustics

The ocean is an extremely complicated acoustic medium. The most characteristic
feature of the oceanic medium is its inhomogeneous nature. There are two kinds of
inhomogeneities: regular and random. Both strongly influence the sound field in the
ocean. The regular variation of the sound velocity with depth leads to the formation of the
underwater sound channel and, as a consequence, to long-range sound propagation.
The random inhomogeneities give rise to scattering of sound waves and, therefore, to
fluctuations in the sound field.
2.1 Sound Velocity in the Ocean
Variations of the sound velocity c in the ocean are relatively small. As a rule, c
lies between 1450 and 1540 m/s. But even, small changes of c significantly affect the
propagation of sound in the ocean.
Numerous laboratory and field measurements have now shown that the sound speed
increases in a complicated way with increasing temperature, hydrostatic pressure (or
depth), and the amount of dissolved salts in water. A simplified formula for the speed in
m/s was given by Medwin in [3]:
C=1449.2+4.6T- 0.055T2 +0.00029T2 +(1.34-0.01T)(S-35)+0.016z (2.1)
Here the temperature T is expressed in C, salinity S in parts per thousand ,depth z in
metres d velocity c in meters per second. Eq. (2.1) is valid for:
00 T350 C
00 S45 ppt
and 00 z1000m
The Eq. (2.1) is sufficiently accurate for most cases. However, when the propagation
distances have to be derived from time-of-flight measurements, more accurate sound
speed formulae may be required (i.e. 0.1 m/s). These are provided by accurate
2.2 Dependence of c on T, S and z
Fig. 1 shows the typical Temperature profile with surface of the sea at higher
temperature than the temperature at the sea bed. Here we can see, temperature decreases
with depth till some depth value 300 z = m and after that getting constant. This
corresponds to a summer profile of a typical sea.


Fig. 1: Temperature vs. Depth

Sound velocity varies with temperature, salinity and depth. The impact of temperature
and pressure upon the sound velocity, c is shown in Fig. 2. This can be viewed in three
domains. In the first domain, temperature is the dominating factor upon the velocity of
sound. In the second domain or transition domain, both the temperature and depths are
dominating upon the velocity of sound. In the third domain, sound velocity purely
depends on depths. These three domains can be seen in Fig. 2, first domain is till depths
of 200 m, transition domain is from 200-400 m and the third domain is above 400 m.


Fig. 2: Sound velocity vs. Depth

Dependence of c on salinity, S is shown in Fig. 3. Here, with the increase of S, velocity

of sound, c, also increases keeping the shape of the profile unaffected.


Fig. 3: Sound velocity vs. Salinity

2.3 Typical Vertical Profiles of Sound Velocity

The shape of the sound velocity profile
C(z)=c(T(z),S(z),z) (2.2)
is the most important for the propagation of sound in the ocean.
The c(z) profiles
-are different in the various regions of the ocean and
-vary with time (seasons).
At depths below 1 km variations of T and S are usually weak and the increase of sound
velocity is almost exclusively due to the increasing hydrostatic pressure. As a
consequence sound velocity increases almost linearly with depth.
2.3.1 Underwater Sound Channel (USC)
In the deep water regions typical profiles possess:
- Velocity minimum at a certain depth, zm(Fig. 4a)
- zm defines the axis of underwater sound channel
- above zm sound velocity increases mainly due to temperature and
- below it sound velocity increases due to hydrostatic pressure
If a sound source is on the access of the USC or near it, some part of the sound energy is
trapped in the USC and propagates within it, not reaching the bottom or surface, and,
therefore, not undergoing scattering or absorption at these boundaries, cf. [6].
Underwater Sound Channel of the first kind, co < ch

co velocity at the surface, ch velocity at a depth

Fig. 4: Underwater sound channel of the first kind (co < ch). (a) profile c(z), (b) ray diagram


Waveguide propagation can be observed in the interval depths of 0<z< zc . The depth z=0
and z=c are the boundaries of the USC. The channel traps all sound rays that leave a
source located on the USC axis at grazing angles:
where cm and c0 are the sound velocities at the axis and boundaries of the channel,
respectively. Hence, the greater the difference, c0 - cm the larger is the interval of angles
in which the rays are trapped, i.e. the waveguide is more effective, cf. [6].
Underwater Sound Channel of the second kind, c0 > ch

c0 velocity at the surface, ch velocity at a depth h

Fig.5 : Underwater channel of the second kind (co > ch). (a) profile c(z), (b) ray diagram

Here, the USC extends from the bottom up to the depth zc where the sound velocity
equals ch . Two limiting rays are shown in Fig. 5b for this case. Trapped rays do not
extend above the depth zc. Only the rays reflected from the bottom reach this zone.
The depth of the USC axis in deep ocean is usually 1000-1200 m. In the tropical areas it
can range down to 2000 m. The sound velocity ranges from, cf. [6]:
- 1450 m/s to 1485 m/s in the Pacific Ocean.
- 1450 m/s to 1500 m/s in the Atlantic Ocean.
2.3.2 Surface Sound Channel
This channel is formed when the axis is at the surface. A typical profile for this
case is shown in Fig. 6a. The sound velocity increases down to depth z = h and then
begins to decrease. Rays leaving the source at grazing angles
multiple reflections in the surface sound channel, cf. [6].

propagate with


Fig. 6: Surface sound channel. (a) profile c(z), (b) ray diagram

In the case of a rough ocean surface, the sound energy is partly scattered into angles
, at each interaction with the surface, i.e.
- rays leave the sound channel
- sound level decays in the surface sound channel and increases below the surface sound
Surface sound channels frequently occur
- in tropical and moderate zones of the ocean, where T and S are constant due to
mixing in the upper ocean layer. c increases due to hydrostatic pressure gradient.
-if the temperature on the surface decays due to seasonal changes, i.e. summer autumn
-in Arctic and Antarctic regions, where a monotonically increasing sound velocity profile
from the surface to the bottom can be observed.
2.3.3 Antiwaveguide Propagation
Antiwaveguide propagation is observed when the sound velocity monotonically
decreases with depth (Fig. 7a). Such sound velocity profiles are often a result of intensive
heating by solar radiation of the upper ocean layer.


Fig. 7: Formation of a geometrical shadow zone when the velocity

monotonically decreases with depth.

All rays refract downwards. The ray tangent to the surface is the limiting one. The shaded
area represents the geometrical shadow zone (Fig. 7b). The geometrical shadow zone is
not a region of zero sound intensity, cf. [6].
2.3.4 Sound Propagation in Shallow Water
This type of propagation corresponds to the case where each ray from the source,
when continued long enough is reflected at the bottom. A typical profile is shown in Fig.
8a. It is observed in shallow seas and the ocean shelf, especially during summer-autumn
period when the upper water layers get well heated, cf. [6].

Fig. 8: Sound propagation in a shallow sea. (a) profile c(z), (b) ray diagram

2.4 Propagation Loss of Sound

2.4.1 Spreading Loss
Spreading loss is a measure of signal weakening due to the geometrical spreading
of a wave propagating outward from the source. Two geometries are of importance in
underwater acoustics:


1. Spherical Spreading
In a homogenous and infinitely extended medium, the power generated by a point source
is radiated in all directions on the surface of a sphere. This is called spherical spreading.
Since intensity equals power per area, we obtain at ranges r0 and r, cf. [2]


Incase of spherical spreading, the intensity decreases by r2 . The spreading loss is given

2. Cylindrical Spreading
Cylindrical spreading exists when the medium is confined by two reflecting planes. The
distance between the planes is supposed to be 10 h >10 . Where, denotes the
wavelength of the sound wave. Since intensity equals power per area, we obtain at ranges
with r0 and r with (r>>h).cf.[2].

The loss due to cylindrical spreading is
The intensity decreases linearly with distance r. In logarithmic notation, for cylindrical
spreading, the spreading loss is
Taking n as the exponent, we can express the spreading loss for geometric spreading in
logarithmic notation



where exponent n = 1 for cylindrical spreading; n = 2 for spherical spreading.
2.4.2 Sound Attenuation in water
The acoustic energy of a sound wave propagating in the ocean is partly: absorbed, i.e. the energy is transformed into heat. - lost due to sound scattering by
Remark: It is not possible to distinguish between absorption and scattering effects in real
ocean experiments. Both phenomena contribute to the sound attenuation in sea water.
On the basis of extensive laboratory and field experiments the following empirical
formulae for attenuation coefficient in sea water have been derived.
a) Thorp formula, valid frequency domain see Fig. 9a
where, f is frequency [kHz]
b.) Schulkin and Marsh, valid frequency domain see Fig. 9b
A=2.34x10-6 , B =3.38x10-6 ,
S is the salinity in [ppt],
P is the hydrostatic pressure [kg/cm2 ]
F is the frequency [kHz], and
fT = 21.9x106-1520/(T+273) [kHz],
is the relaxation frequency with T the temperature in [o C]. While the temperature range
from 0 to 30 o C, fT varies approximately from 59 to 210 kHz.
c.) Francois and Garrison, valid frequency domain see Fig. 9c

The first term in equatio (2.14) corresponds to:





Magnesium Sulphate Mg(SO4 )

The sound speed is approximately given by

Pure water (H2 O)


with f in [kHz], T in [o C], S in [ppt]. And where zmax , pH and c denote the depth in [m],
the pH-value and the sound speed in [m/s] respectively.

Fig.9: Diagram indicating Empirical formula for different frequency domain

General diagram showing the variation of with the three regions of Boric acid,
Magnesium Sulphate and Pure water is depicted in Fig. 10.



Fig. 10: General Diagram indicating the three regions of B(OH)3 , Mg(SO4 ) and (H2 O).

From Fig. 10, it can be observed that for the Boric acid region, Attenuation is
proportional to f2 . And for the regions Magnesium sulphate and pure water also
Attenuation is proportional to f2. In the transition domains it is proportional to f .
Attenuation increases with increasing salinity and temperature, Fig. 11. Attenuation
increases with increasing frequency.




Fig.11: Attenuation for various salinities and temperature. a)20 o C b)30 o C

2.4.3 Sound Attenuation in sediment

The sound attenuation in sediment mainly varies with the bottom type. Bottom type,
in short represented by bt, defines the sediment material of the ocean. The following table
provides the values of bt for each sediment type.

Bottom Reflection Coefficients

Table 1



The following empirical formula is provided to find the sound attenuation in the
sediment depending on the bt.

where s is attenuation of sediment.
The following table provides the values for K and n for four sediment types.

Table 2

2.4.4 Surface and Bottom Scattering

Scattering is a mechanism for loss, interference and fluctuation. A rough sea
surface or seafloor causes attenuation of the mean acoustic field propagating in the ocean
waveguide. The attenuation increases with increasing frequency. The field scattered
away from the specular direction, and, in particular, the backscattered field (called
reverberation) acts as interference for active sonar systems. Because the ocean surface
moves, it will also generate acoustic fluctuations. Bottom roughness can also generate
fluctuations when the source or receiver is moving. The importance of boundary
roughness depends on the sound-speed profiles which determine the degree of interaction
of sound with the rough boundaries.
Often the effect of scattering from a rough surface is thought of simply an additional loss
to the specularly reflected (coherent) component resulting from the scattering of energy
away from the specular direction. If the ocean bottom or surface can be modeled as
randomly rough surface, and if the roughness is small with respect to the acoustic
wavelength, the reflection loss can be considered to be modified in a simple fashion by
the scattering process. A formula often used to describe reflectivity from a rough
boundary is
where R(

is the new reflection coefficient, reduced because of scattering at the

randomly rough interface. is the Rayleigh roughness parameter defined as




where k = 2 is the acoustic wave number and is the rms roughness.The rough
seasurface reflection coefficient for the coherent field is
The roughness of the ocean surface is due to wind induced waves. It can be calculated
from the spectral density of ocean displacements. It is often modeled by the NeumannPierson wave spectrum. The rms roughness or rms wave height of a fully developed
wind wavefield is then approximately

where, vw denotes the wind speed, [m/s].
For ocean bottom, is related to the particle size (particle refers to the material of the
sediment, further see section 2.4.3, Table 1) by,

bt - represents the bottom type

2.4.5 Ambient Noise

An important acoustic characteristic of the ocean is its underwater ambient noise.
It contains a great bulk of information concerning the state of the ocean surface, the
atmosphere over the ocean, tectonic processes in the earths crust under the ocean, the
behaviour of marine animals and so on From, Fig. 13, different dominating levels of
ambient noise and total noise level can be observed and the individual formulae for all
these are as stated belo
For shipping noise (traffic) 10-300 Hz

Turbulence noise




Self noise of the vessel

where f and s v denote the frequency and vessel speed respectively.
Biological noise (fishes, scrimps etc.)

where f and S denote the frequency and seasonal dependence.

Sea state noise

The sea state noise can be determined as function of wind speed vw in [kn] and
frequency f in [kHz] by


Thermal noise
The thermal noise is due to molecular agitation (Brownian Motion). It can be
expressed as function of frequency f in [kHz] by


Thus the total noise level can be determined by:




Fig. 12: Ambient Noise Level for different domains at vw = 20 kn

2.5 Sound Propagation

2.5.1 Image or Mirror Method
The image method superimposes the free-field solution with the fields produced
by the
image sources.

Fig. 13 shows a schematic representation of a wave from the boundaries of a layer, and the image sources









The remaining terms are obtained by successive imaging of these sources to yield the
ray expansion for the total field,








And D being the vertical depth of the duct.

2.5.2 Grazing angles

The angle with which each ray grazes the boundaries is usually termed as grazing
This is quite important because of its influence on both the bottom and surface reflection
coefficients. With simple mathematics, the grazing angle for the four paths or for all the
rays can be computed, and is given by







Further, from Eq. (3.27), we can write down the influence of

Wind speed, frequency and grazing angle on Surface reflection coefficient, R,
Bottom type and grazing angle on Bottom reflection coefficient, R.
The functional dependence of wind speed w v , frequency f and grazing angle m on
Surface reflection coefficient is illustrated in Fig. 18.

2.5.3 Travel Times

The travel time of each ray is the time taken for it to reach the receiver. From the
above discussion it is vivid that, all the other paths need more time compared to the direct
path. Travel times for all the rays can be easily computed provided we know the lengths
or distances of all rays and the velocity of each ray. From Eq.(3.28), we know the
distances of all rays and the velocity of each ray is the speed of sound, c. Thereby, we can
write as



Fig. 14 Multipath propagation depicting delays in 2-D

Fig 15. Multipath propagation depicting delays in 3D view

Fig. 20 and Fig. 21 show the delay of rays in 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional views. It
can be clearly observed the delay of sinc pulse from ray 1 till ray 8. Here, sinc pulse is
just taken as an example to show the concept of delay.



2.5.4 Transmission loss for each ray

The transmission loss or sometimes referred as propagation loss is nothing but the
of all the losses, a ray gets effected. So, transmission loss can be written as,

In the above equation the transmission loss is written only for ray 4, as an example. In
terms of Eq. (3.27), spreading loss is due to the terms
(as discussed in sec. 2.4.1). The attenuation or absorption is from the imaginary part of
the complex wave number k , as discussed in sec. 2.4.3, refer to Eq. (2.30). The Total
Reflection loss can be seen in this way. It is a sum of,
reflection loss, loss which is caused when a ray travels from medium1 to medium2
due to the refraction of the ray, due to the reflection of the ray.
scattering loss, loss which is caused by the roughness of the boundary. That is rays
get scattered in an un orderly fashion.
In Eq. (3.27), it is caused due to the terms

The following figure illustrates the transmission loss phenomenon.

Fig 16 : Multipath propagation depicting transmission loss



As an example, a sinc pulse is taken to present the transmission loss phenomenon. In

Fig.16, one can observe clearly the degradation process in amplitude from ray 1 till
ray 8.




A detailed description about the simulation of a continuous-time baseband system
is provided here.

Fig. 17: Underwater Acoustic Simulation system

The communication system considered is shown in Fig. 17. This is a typical set up which
can represent any kind of system using quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). This
QPSK system is used in our investigations. A brief overview of the system now follows.
At the transmitting side, the sequence of symbols d (n) is converted to a continuous-time
baseband signal Sbb(t) by a pulse amplitude modulator (PAM). Note that d (n) takes the
values from discrete set of complex-valued symbols. Up-conversion is performed by
multiplying with ej2ft resulting in a bandpass signal s (t ), being transmitted over the
channel (refer chapters 2 and 3). In order to remove the carrier, the received signal r (t

is processed by a down-converter which outputs the corresponding baseband equivalent

signal rbb(t). The down-converter is followed by a low pass and then by a matched filter.
The detector gives the estimates of the transmitted symbols. As we already said above,
baseband representation is useful in order to be able to simulate the system using, for
example, Matlab, where only time discrete signals can be represented. Fig. 37 represents
the baseband equivalent system.



Fig. 18: The baseband Equivalent system

A simulation is often based on oversampled system, i.e. the sampling rate is higher than
the symbol rate. In general, a higher sampling rate will more accurately reflect the
original system. However, this comes at the cost of a longer simulation time since more
samples need to be processed. It is common to use an oversampling rate that is a multiple
of the symbol rate. The number of samples per symbols, here denoted by Q is then an
In order to arrive at the desired discrete time system, we will take the continuous-time
baseband equivalent system, introduce an ideal anti-alias filter at the output of the
matched filter and then oversample its output. This is depicted in Fig. 38, where also
down-sampling a factor Q is assumed to be chosen so large that the bandwidth of the
matched filter is smaller than the bandwidth Q 2T of the anti-alias filter. Consequently,
the anti-alias filter does not change the signal output from the matched filter. The signal
at the input of the detector is same as for the continuous-time system. Thus, this
oversampled system is equivalent to the original system.

Fig.19: Oversampling the system

3.1 Channel
The complete description of the channel can be understood from chapters. 1, 2
and 3. Nevertheless, a brief summary of it is again provided here. The main problems of
this channel are its multipath propagation, thereby a cause of interference. And next are
channel variations, variations in physical parameters of the ocean such as temperature,
pH, salinity, pressure or depth of water. All these are extensively discussed in the above
chapters mentioned. This report considers almost all the parameters into consideration
while modeling the channel. The simulation block diagram of the channel can be found in
Appendix of the report. Fig. 44 represents the Underwater acoustic channel model used in



this simulation h1(t), represents the direct path or first ray with zero delay (relative) and
hN(t) represents the Nth ray with a delay of N with respect to the direct path.

Fig. 20 : Underwater Acoustic channel model




This chapter presents you with some exemplary simulation results along with
some interesting observations. First we look into the Underwater Acoustic Channel then
we cover the Communication part of the system.
As discussed in the above chapters 2 and 3, the major impact in an underwater acoustic
channel would be its multipath propagation. Always our desired goal is to achieve high
data rates at a decent geometry of the transmitter and receiver (low BER is implied). Here,
the term geometry means the physical positioning of a transmitter and receiver in an
underwater acoustic channel of depth D and infinite length. At shorter distances the
multipath reaches the receiver at a much longer time compared to the direct path. This
statement may appear some what contrasting to what we think. But, it certainly makes
sense when we look into it in a deeper view. Here, we are not speaking about the time
taken for each ray to reach the receiver. But, instead we are referring to the Relative
time of all the other rays comparing to direct path.
Fig.21 presents the simulation results for a particular environmental scenario varying the
receiver location. This figure explains the impact of distances, (indirectly its grazing
angles which play a major role) on time delays of multipath propagation for the following
environmental scenario. Here, the wind speed and bottom type are not included as we are
representing only the time delay concept without any transmission loss phenomenon



Fig. 21: Simulation Results showing relative travel times for various receiver locations of a sinc pulse
without including any transmission loss phenomenon.

The relative times of all the 8 rays comparing to direct and the grazing angles for each
case are provided in the following.

T = [0 20.8207 20.8207 47.0817 47.0817 73.6106 73.6106 100.2081]

Angles = [0 75.9638 75.9638 82.8750 82.8750 85.2364 85.2364 86.4237]

T = [0 5.1355 5.1355 18.7083 18.7083 37.4700 37.4700 59.1197]

Angles = [0 21.8014 21.8014 38.6598 38.6598 50.1944 50.1944 57.9946]

T = [0 1.0650 1.0650 4.2397 4.2397 9.4656 9.4656 16.6508]



Angles = [0 4.5739 4.5739 9.0903 9.0903 13.4957 13.4957 17.7447]

T = [0 0.5331 0.5331 2.1299 2.1299 4.7828 4.7828 8.4794]

Angles = [0 2.2906 2.2906 4.5739 4.5739 6.8428 6.8428 9.0903]

There is a huge difference in relative travel times for very shorter distances of 10 m, case
(a), compared to a desirable range of 1000 m, case (d). This can be understood when we
observe the corresponding grazing angles for each case. In case (a), the grazing angles are
very high due to shorter distances where, as in case (d) you observe very low grazing
angles. Another observation is the same, relative travel times and grazing angles for rays
hitting surface or bottom, surface-bottom-surface or bottom-surface-bottom, etc. This is
due to the location of both transmitter and receiver at exactly half of channels depth.
Here, we did not show any impact of Reflection loss and Spreading loss, only the time
delay concept has been focused. From now on, we refer mainly to grazing angles to
explain the behaviour of the system as the distance or lengths of each ray are included
when you calculate the grazing angle. The following simulation results are exclusively
presented to show the impact of transmission loss (including time delays) on multipath
propagation at various vertical depths of transmitter and receiver along with various
horizontal distances. Changing the vertical depths means, placing the receiver not exactly
at the half of the water channel depths but instead placing it, either nearer to the bottom
or nearer to the surface to look what exactly is happening for the bottom and surface
reflection coefficients.
When the separation between them is 10-200 m you dont have that much impact of
multi-path propagation and thereby, receiver design complexity is much reduced. But,in
practical applications the distance between the transmitter and receiver is generally
desired beyond 500 m. So, all our simulation results are presented considering a 1000 m
separation between the transmitter and receiver. But, nevertheless, we do present some
simulation results when the receiver is at smaller distances from the transmitter. Another
criterion which is considered in the following simulation results is the change of
transmitter and receiver vertical depths. These are presented only to show the impact of
the distances between transmitter and receiver. For example, when we think of the water
channel depths to be 40 m and if the receiver is located at depths of 35 m, it signifies that
there would be certainly a more amount reflection of the signal from Surface compared to
Bottom. We always mean relative time delays with respect to the direct path when we
speak about time delays.



Fig. 22 presents, simulation results including the transmission loss phenomenon for two
transmitters and receivers at different locations. First we look into Fig. 49a and 49b. This
is for the case where the receiver is placed at a shorter distance of 200 m and vertical
depths of transmitter and receiver are swapped between 10 and 35 m. The complete
environmental scenario that has been chosen is given above. As said above, here, we
observe only the direct path and the multi-paths are completely suppressed. This is due to
the lower reflection coefficients at higher grazing angles and thereby, the transmission
loss of each ray becomes quite negligible. The transmission loss considers the number of
reflections (in turn reflection coefficients) when a ray hits the boundaries along with the
spreading loss (1/L ). So, the direct path will never have any reflection loss. Apart from
the direct path we observe the 3rd ray in both the cases (a) and (b), but not the 2nd ray.
This is due to zero reflection of the 2nd ray when it hits the surface.
R1 Surface reflection coefficient
R2 Bottom reflection coefficient

Angles = [7.1250 12.6804 9.9262 15.3763 27.6995 32.0054 29.8989 34.0193]

R1 = [0.2766 0.0179 0.0835 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000]
R2 = [0.2002 0.0591 0.1084 0.0342 0.0427 0.0481 0.0457 0.0501]

Angles = [-7.1250 12.6804 9.9262 27.6995 15.3763 32.0054 29.8989 42.7688]



R1 = [0.2766 0.0179 0.0835 0.0000 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000]

R2 = [0.9772 0.0591 0.1084 0.0427 0.0342 0.0481 0.0457 0.0559]

Fig. 22:Simulation results showing relative travel times for various transmitter and receiver locations of a
sinc-pulse including the transmission loss phenomenon.

Coming to Fig. 22c and 22d, we certainly see the impact of multipath growing to greater
extent as the separation between transmitter and receiver is more, i.e. 1000 m. In Fig. 22c,
the 4th ray hits the surface 2 times and then bottom one time, i.e. S-B-S and the 5th ray hits
the surface one time and 2 times the bottom, i.e. B-S-B. From the following results, it is
observed that the 4th ray grazes at an angle of 3.1481 and 5th ray with 5.9941. This leads
to lower reflection coefficients for 5th ray compared to 4th ray.
Similarly, in Fig. 22d, the 5th ray hits the surface one time and 2 times the bottom, i.e. BS-B and the 4th ray hits the surface 2 times and then bottom one time, i.e. S-B-S. From the
results provided in d), it is observed that the 5th ray grazes at an angle of 3.1481 and 4th
ray with 5.9941. This leads to lower reflection coefficients for 4th ray compared to
5th ray.



Here, we see another interesting observation, i.e. in Fig. 22c, the 4th ray has larger
amplitude compared to 5th ray and exactly the opposite is seen in Fig. 22d. This is due to
the swapping of the vertical placements of transmitter and receiver from 10 to 35 m.
The simulation results for grazing angles and reflection coefficients:

Angles = [1.4321 2.5766 2.0045 3.1481 5.9941 7.1250 6.5602 7.6884]

R1 = [0.9492 0.8447 0.9028 0.7773 0.4021 0.2766 0.3361 0.2242]
R2 = [0.7191 0.5533 0.6306 0.4858 0.2568 0.2002 0.2266 0.1769]

Angles = [-1.4321 2.5766 2.0045 5.9941 3.1481 7.1250 6.5602 10.4812]

R1 = [0.9492 0.8447 0.9028 0.4021 0.7773 0.2766 0.3361 0.0630]
R2 = [0.9772 0.5533 0.6306 0.2568 0.4858 0.2002 0.2266 0.0960]

Fig.23 represents another simulation result to just show the impact of multi-path at a little
bit lower wind speed of 6 knots and with a bottom type value of 4.



Fig. 23: Simulation results showing relative time travels for two different vertical depths of transmitter and
receiver of a sinc pulse including the transmission

By now it is understood, multi-path dominates when the separation between the

transmitter and receiver increases and also varies with the vertical positions of the
transmitter and receiver. Added to this when you have a lower wind speed and a soft
bottom, it becomes more worse. The difference can be clearly observed from Fig. 49c,d
and Fig. 50. Here also the same behavior of amplitude difference is observed for 4th, 5th,
6th, 7th etc as the geometry is different for both cases.
Finally, you have the case of a constructive interference and destructive interference of
the multipath. When the multi-path gets added to the direct path in accordance with its
phase then we have a constructive interference otherwise a destructive one. So,
sometimes even if the multi-path is not dominative, you may still have a poor BER.
As we have discussed till now the multipath propagation in underwater acoustic channel
and all the channel effects, now we move to communications part of the system. Always
in communications the desired goal is to achieve maximum signal to noise ratio. In
underwater acoustic channel the noise is in two forms, one is the ambient noise discussed
in chapter 2 and the other is the multipath itself. We can also say, here the signal itself
acts as a noise as the multipath is nothing but (delayed versions of direct path) generated
from our signal only. So, here when ever we refer to SNR we imply that it the ratio
between the signal strengths of the direct path and multipath. The following are some
simulation results which show the Bit Error Ratio for only direct path and multi-path for
2 different wind speeds and bottom types.




Environmental Scenario

Fig. 24 represents the BER plot only for direct path. As one can imagine, when we
transmit only the direct path, there will not be any noise present only you have
attenuation of the signal strength. So, the BER of direct path is 0.

Fig. 24: BER plot direct-path for the above Environmental scenario 1.



In the following two cases of multi-path propagation have been considered. One is at a
mud bottom type and lower wind speeds and the other is a bit higher wind speed and sand
bottom type. In case 1, the BER is much higher compared to case 2 as expected.
This is due to more reflections at lower wind speeds and softer bottom types.
Case 1

Environmental Scenario




Fig. 25: BER plots multi-path propagation for the above Environmental scenario 2, case 1 a) linear scale
b) log scale.

Case 2




Environmental Scenario




Fig. 26: BER plots multi-path propagation for the above Environmental scenario 2, case 2 a) linear scal
b) log scale.

From Figs. 25 and 26 it can observed that when you have higher wind speeds and rough
bottom types, the strengths of all the rays constituting multi-path propagation is getting
minimized. In these type of situations the communication aspect would become easy
compared to the acoustic channel. But, in practical applications, lower wind speeds are
present and thereby, making the communications design more hard. So, we should
always keep the range of wind speeds between 0-20 knots for our desired underwater
acoustic applications and the communication system should be designed robust even at
lower wind speeds.
Constellation Diagrams
From the following constellation diagrams, you can see an error free propagation for
direct path, Fig. 27 and errors for multi-path, Fig. 28



Fig. 27: Received QPSK states for direct path

Fig. 28: Received QPSK states for multi path



Some underwater acoustic applications like simple status reports or transfer time
position coordinates require a bit rate of 100 bits/s. But in several other applications like
sea floor mapping and in some military applications bit rates of several k bits/s are
required due to the transfer of high size images. As an initial step to explore systems for
communication that have the potential of transferring data at rates of multiple k bits/sec
over distances of several kilometres underwater, we have developed this simulation tool.
This simulation tool is designed for communication using Quadrature Phase Shift Keying
(QPSK) modulation techniques in an Underwater Acoustic Channel (UAC). It mainly
consists of a transmitter, UAC and a receiver. It provides a thorough insight into various
problems that are encountered by underwater sound channel and also explains the
degradation of bit error rate (BER) due to channel variations and presence of multipath
All the oceanographic acoustic fundamentals have been considered in depth while
modelling the UAC. QPSK modulation techniques have been employed for the
transmitter and receiver. This tool works with a very low BER for the direct path even at
higher bit rates and is also robust for all channel variations. In short we can summarize
the following about what this simulation model provides:
a thorough insight into the complexity of an underwater acoustic channel.
the ability to design and analyse time invariant equalizers with sensitivity to equalizer
gives the flexibility to change the carrier frequency.
This tool shows the practical poor BER for multi path propagation and it produces
satisfactory results in the bandwidths ranging 1-2 Kbps. The robustness of the system for
multipath propagation drastically decreases when the channel variations are getting worse.
The simulation tool developed here was for fixed transmitter and receiver locations. As
explained in this report, the presence of multipath causes an intersymbol interference
(ISI) that destroys the message, due to different travel times for different rays. Depending
on the particular sound underwater channel in question, the ISI can involve, in tens or
even hundreds of symbols. A solution for this problem might be to employ an adaptive
equalizer in the simulation tool (here, adaptive is used as we refer to a moving transmitter
and receiver). An equalizer can be viewed as an inverse filter to the channel. But,



nevertheless, in practical situations even the employment of an equalizer would not solve
the problem of transferring high bit rates. This can pose us to think of employing
modulation techniques like Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM). So,
our future outlook for the extension of this simulation tool would be:
Incorporation of moving transmitter and receiver.
Model validation with measurements.
Investigation of adaptive single input multiple output (SIMO) equalization.
Application of orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM) communication.



[1] F.B. Jensen, W.A. Kuperman, M.B. Porter and H. Schmidt, Computational Ocean
Acoustics (Springer- Verlag, New York, Inc., 2000).
[2] H.G. Urban, Handbook of Underwater Acoustic Engineering (STN Atlas Elektronik
GmbH, Bremen, 2002).
[3] H. Medwin and C.S. Clay, Fundamentals of Acoustical Oceanography (Academic
Press,San Diego, 1998).
[4] John. G. Proakis, Digital Communications, fourth edition (McGraw-Hill, NY, 2001).
[5] Johnny R. Johnson, Introduction to Digital Signal Processing (Prentice-Hall of India
Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi, 1996).
[6] L.M. Brekhovskikh and Yu. P. Lysanov, Fundamentals of Ocean Acoustics (SpringerVerlag, second edition).
[7] Simon Haykin, An introduction to Analog & Digital Communications (John Wiley &
Sons, Singapore, 1994).
[8] www.complextoreal.com
[9] http://literature.agilent.com
[10] http://www.kth.se
[11] 51-st Open Seminar on Acoustic Program, Gdansk 2004
[12] R. E. Williams and H. F. Battestin, "Coherent recombination of acoustic multipath
signals propagated in the deep ocean," The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
vol. 50, pp. 1433- 1442, 1971.
[13] SOund NAvigation and Ranging, coined by Professor F.V. Hunt of Harvard.
[14] Fundamentals of Marine Acoustics, Chapter 1 Jerald W. Caruthers, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, 1977.
[15] Luke Godden, Underwater Ultrasonic Communication, 2002 Undergraduate
Thesis, The University of Queensland.
[16] C. E. Shannon, (1949) A mathematical Theory of Communication, proceedings of
IE 37 , pp. 10-21.
[17] Mari Carmen Domingo, (2008) Overview of channel models for underwater
wireless communication Networks, Elsevier Journal on Physical Communication , vol . 1,
issue 3, pp. 163-182.



[18] Donald R. Hummeu, (1972) The Capacity of a model for the underwater acoustic
channel, IEEE Transactions on Sonics and Ultrasonics , vol. SU-19, no. 3, pp. 350-353.
[19] Thomas J. Hayward and T. C. Yang, (2004) Underwater Acoustic Communication
Channel Capacity: A Simulation Study, Proc. of AIP conference, vol. 728, pages 114124.
[20] Balakrishnan Srinivasan, (2008) Capacity of UW acoustic OFDM Cellular
Networks, MS Thesis,University of California.
[21] Milica Stojanovic, (2007) On the relationship between capacity and distance in an
underwater acoustic communication channel, Proc. of ACM SIGMOBILE MC2R , vol.
11, issue 4, pp. 34-43.
[22] James Preisig and Milica Stojanovic, (2009) Underwater acoustic communication
channels: Propagation models and statistical characterization, IEEE Communications
Magazine , vol. 47, no. 1, pp.84-89.
[24] M. Stojanovic Recent Advances in high-rate underwater acoustic Communications,
IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., pp.125-136, Apr. 1996.
[25] A. Kaya and S.Yauchi, An acoustic communication system for subsea robot, in
Proc. OCEANS89, pp. 765-770, Seattle, Washington, Oct 1989.
[26] M. Suzuki and T. Sasaki, Digital acoustic image transmission system for deep sea
research submersible, in Proc. OCEANS92, pp. 567-570, Newport, RI, Oct, 1992.
[27] M. Stojanovic, J.A. Catipovic and J.G. Proakis, Adaptive multichannel combining
and equalization for underwater acoustic communications, Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, vol. 94 (3), Pt. 1, pp.1621-1631, Sept. 1993.


Absorption 1, 6, 11, 23
Academic 43
Acoustic 1, 2, 3, 11, 15, 16, 25, 26, 27,
28, 34, 39, 41, 43, 44
Acoustical 43, 44
Acoustics 3, 9, 43
Ambient 16, 18, 34
America 43, 44
Amplitude 24, 25, 33, 34
Analog 43
Angle 20, 21, 30, 32
Angles 7, 8, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33
Antarctic 8
Anti-alias 26
Antiwaveguide 8
Applications 1, 2, 30, 39, 41
Arctic 8
Atlantic 7
Atlas 43
Atmosphere 16
AUVs 1
Axis 6, 7

B-S-B 32
Backscattered 15
Balakrishnan 44
Bandpass 25
Bandwidth 1, 26
Bandwidths 41
Baseband 25, 26
Battestin 43
Behavior 34
Behaviour 16, 30
Biological 17
Bottom-surface-bottom 30
Brekhovskikh 43
Bremen 43

Broadcasting-satellite 2
Brownian 17

California 44
Capacity 44
Caruthers 43
Catipovic 44
Channel 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
42, 43, 44
Channels 8, 30, 44
Characteristic 3, 16
Clay 43
Coefficient 11, 15, 16, 21, 31
Coefficients 1, 2, 14, 20, 30, 31, 32,
Communication 1, 2, 25, 28, 39, 41,
42, 43, 44
Communications 1, 34, 39, 43, 44
Complex 23
Complex-valued 25
Continuous-time 25, 26

Data 1, 2, 28, 41
Degradation 24, 41
Delhi 43
Detection 1
Device 2
Diagram 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 26
Direct-path 35
Direction 15
Directions 10
Domain 4, 11, 12
Domains 4, 13, 18
Domingo 43
Donald 44
Doppler 1

Down-converter 25
Down-sampling 26
Duct 20
DVB-s 2

Elektronik 43
Elsevier 43
Empirical 11, 12, 15
Energy 1, 6, 8, 11, 15
Engineering 43
Environment 2
Environmental 1, 28, 31, 35, 36, 37,
38, 39
Equalization 42, 44
Equalizer 41, 42
Equalizers 41
Equation 23
Estimates 2, 25

Field 3, 11, 15, 16, 19
Fields 1, 18
Fluctuation 15
Fluctuations 3, 15
Formula 3, 11, 12, 15
Formulae 3, 11, 16
Francois 11
Free-field 18
Frequencies 1
Frequency 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 41,
Function 17
Functional 21
Fundamentals 3, 41, 43

Gdansk 43
Geometric 10
Geometrical 9
Geometries 9
Geometry 28, 34
Godden 43
Gradient 8

Harvard 43
Haykin 43
Hayward 44
Horizontal 30
Hummeu 44

Idea 2
Ideal 26
Image 18, 44
Images 41
Imaging 19
India 43
Industry 1
Inhomogeneities 1, 3, 11
Inhomogeneous 3
Integer 26
Interference 15, 26, 34, 41
Intersymbol 41
Investigation 2, 42
Investigations 25
Iridium 2
ISI 41

Garrison 11

James 44
Jensen 43
Jerald 43

John 43
Johnny 43
Johnson 43
Journal 43, 44

Multiplexing 42
Multiplying 25

Kaya 44
KHZ 1, 11, 12, 17
Knots 33, 39
Kuperman 43
Laboratory 3, 11
Layer 8, 18
Layers 9
Logarithmic 10
Long-range 3
Luke 43
Lysanov 43

Magnesium 12, 13
Mapping 1, 41
Mari 43
Marine 16, 43
Marsh 11
McGraw-hill 43
Measurements 3, 42
Mechanism 15
Medwin 3, 43
Milica 44
Military 1, 41
Modulation 1, 2, 25, 41, 42
Modulator 25
Molecular 17
Monotonically 8, 9
Multi-path 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39
Multi-paths 31
Multichannel 44
Multipath 1, 2, 22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 32,
34, 41, 43
Multiple 2, 7, 26, 41, 42
Multiplex 42

Navigation 43
Networks 43, 44
Neumann 16
Newport 44
Noise 16, 17, 18, 34, 35

Observation 30, 33
Observations 28
Ocean 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16,
26, 43
Ocean-bottom 1
Oceanic 3, 44
Oceanographic 41
Oceanography 43
OFDM 42, 44
Off-shore 1
Operation 1
Orthogonal 42
Output 2, 26, 42
Outputs 25
Oversample 26
Oversampled 26
Oversampling 26
Overview 25, 43

Pacific 7
Parameter 15
Parameters 26
Particle 16
Path 21, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 39, 40,
Ph 1, 12, 26

Ph-value 12
Phase-shift 1, 2
Phenomena 11
Phenomenon 2, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32
Pierson 16
Pollution 1
Prentice-hall 43
Proakis 43, 44
Proc 44
Propagation 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 22,
23, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 44
Pulse 22, 24, 25, 29, 34

Qam 2, 25
QPSK 1, 2, 25, 40, 41
Quadrature 1, 2, 25, 41
Queensland 43

Radiation 8
Rayleigh 15
Rays 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30,
39, 41
Receiver 1, 2, 15, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 41, 42
Receivers 31
Recombination 43
Reflection 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23,
30, 31, 32, 33
Reflections 1, 7, 31, 36
Reflectivity 15
Refract 9
Refraction 23
Reverberation 15
RMS 16
Robot 44
Robust 1, 39, 41
Robustness 41
Roughness 1, 15, 16, 23

Salinities 14
Salinity 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 26
Salts 3
Sasaki 44
Satellite 2
SBB 25
Schematic 18
Schmidt 43
Schulkin 11
Scientific 1, 43
Seasonal 8, 17
Seasurface 16
Sediment 14, 15, 16
Shannon 43
Sigmobile 44
Signal 1, 9, 25, 26, 30, 34, 35, 43
Signals 25, 43
Simo 42
Simon 43
Simulate 25
Simulation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41, 42, 43, 44
Sinc-pulse 32
Singapore 43
SNR 34
Solution 18, 41
Sonar 15
Sonics 44
Sound 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 41, 43
Sound-speed 15
Spherical 10, 11
Springer 43
Srinivasan 44
Stojanovic 44
Submersible 44
Subsea 44
Sulphate 12, 13
Summer-autumn 9
Surface 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16,
20, 21, 30, 31, 32
Surface-bottom-surface 30

Symbols 2, 25, 26, 41

System 2, 25, 26, 28, 30, 34, 39, 41,
Systems 1, 15, 41

USC 6, 7
UW 44

Table 14, 15, 16
Tangent 9
Technique 2
Techniques 2, 41, 42
Tectonic 16
Temperature 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14,
Theory 3, 43
Thermal 17
Thomas 44
Thorp 11
Transition 4, 13
Transmission 1, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 34, 44
Transmitter 1, 2, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 41, 42
Transmitters 31
Trapped 6, 7
Traps 7
Travel 21, 29, 30, 32, 41
Travels 23, 34
Tropical 7, 8
Turbulence 16

Validation 42
Value 3, 33
Values 14, 15, 25
Varies 4, 11, 14, 34
Velocities 7
Velocitometers 3
Velocity 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21
Verlag 43
Vertical 6, 20, 30, 31, 33, 34

Washington 44
Water 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 26, 30
Wavefield 16
Waveguide 7, 15
Wavelength 10, 15
Waves 1, 3, 16
Wiley 43
Williams 43
Wind 16, 17, 21, 28, 33, 34, 36, 39
Wireless 1, 2, 43

UAC 41
Ultrasonic 43
Ultrasonics 44
Underwater 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41, 42, 43, 44
University 43, 44
Unmanned 1
Up-conversion 25

Yang 44
Yauchi 44
Yu 43

Zero 9, 27, 31