References [1] Global Positioning System standard - Positioning Service Specification, 2nd Edition, June 2, 1995.

[2] MIT Books On Line, Square Roots by Newtons Method, http://wwwmitpress. mit.edu/sicp/chapter1/node9.html. [3] Underwater Acoustics Technical Guides - Speed of Sound in Seawater, http://www.npl.co.uk/accoustics/techguides/soundseawater/speedsw.pdf. [4] Di Benedetto and Giancola, Understanding Ultra Wide Band Radio Fundamentals, Prentice Hall Communications Engineering and Emerging Technology, ISBN: 0131480030, Prentice Hall 2004. [5] T.S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, 2002. [6] I. F. Akyildiz, D. Pompili, T. Melodia, Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks: Research Challenges, Elseviers Journal of Ad Hoc Networks, Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2005, pp. 257-279. [7] T. C. Austin, R. P. Stokey, and K. M. Sharp, PARADIGM: A Buoy-Based System for AUV Navigation and Tracking, in Proceedings of MTS/IEEE Oceans, 2000. [8] C. Bechaz and H. Thomas, GIB system: The underwater GPS solution, in Proceedings of 5th Europe Conference on Underwater Acoustics, May 2000. [9] N. Bulusu, J. Heidemann and D. Estrin, GPS-less Low Cost Outdoor Localization for Very Small Devices, IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, Special Issue on Networking the Physical World, August 2000. [10] J.J. Caffery, Jr and G. L. Stuber, Overview of Radiolocation in CDMA Cellular Systems, IEEE Communications Magazine, pp. 38-45, 1998. [11] J.J. Caffery, Jr and G. L. Stuber, Subscriber Location in CDMA Cellular Networks, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 406416, May 1998.

[12] J.A. Catipovic, A.B. Baggeroer, K.Von Der Heydt and D. Koelsch, Design and Performance Analysis of aDigital Telemetry System for Short Range Underwater Channel, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Vol. OE-9, No. 4, pp.242-252, Oct. 1984 [13] V. Chandrasekhar, W. K.G. Seah, Area Localization Scheme for Underwater Sensor Networks, Proceedings of the IEEE OCEANS Asia Pacific Conference, May 16-19, 2006. [14] V. Chandrasekhar, W. K.G. Seah, Y. S. Choo, and H. V. Ee, Localization in Underwater Sensor Networks -Survey and Challenges, Proceedings of ACM WUWNet, pp. 33-40, 2006. [15] X. Cheng, A. Thaeler, G. Xue and D. Chen TPS: A Time-Based Positioning Scheme for Outdoor Wireless Sensor Networks, IEEE INFOCOM 2004, Vol. 4, pp. 2685-2696, 2004 [16] X. Geng and A. Zielinski, An Eigenpath Underwater Acoustic Communication Channel Model, OCEANS 95. MTS/IEEE. Challenges of Our Changing Global Environment. Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2, Oct.1995 pp:1189 - 1196 [17] M. Hahn and J. Rice, Undersea Navigation via a Distributed Acoustic Communicaiton Network, Proceedings of the Turkish International Conference on Acoustics, July 4-8, 2005. [18] W. Jobst and X. Zabalgogeazcoa, Coherence Estimates for Signals Propagating through Acoustic Channels with Multiple Paths, Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, Vol.65, No.3, pp. 622-630, Mar. 1979 [19] F. Koushanfar, S. Slijepcevic, M. Potkonjak, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Location Discovery in Ad-Hoc Wireless Sensor Networks, in Ad Hoc Wireless Networking (editors X. Cheng, X. Huang and D.-Z. Du), pp. 137-173, 2003. [20] Q. Liang, S. W. Samn, and X. Cheng, Outdoor UWB Channel Modeling in Rich Scattering and Time-Varying Environment, manuscript. [21] F. Liu, X. Cheng, D. Hua, and D. Chen, Range-Difference Based Location Discovery for Sensor Networks with Short Range Beacons, to appear in International Journal on Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing.

[22] A. Nasipuri and K. Li, A Directionality Based Location Discovery Scheme for Wireless Sensor Networks, WSNA02, pp. 105-111, 2002. [23] D. Niculescu, and B. Nath, Ad-Hoc Positioning System (APS), IEEE GlobeCom, 2001. [24] J. Partan, J. Kurose and B.N. Levine, A Survey of Practical Issues in Underwater Networks, Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Underwater networks, International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pp. 17-24, Sep. 2006, Los Angeles, CA. [25] G.H. Sandsmark and A. Solstad, Adaptive Beam Forming and Adaptive Equalization for High-Speed Underwater Acoustic Data Transmission, Proc. of Underwater Defence Tech. Conference, pp. 707-712, Apr. 1991 [26] A. Syed and J. Heidemann, Time Synchronization for High Latency Acoustic Networks, IEEE INFOCOM 2006. [27] A. Thaeler, M. Ding, and X. Cheng, iTPS: An Improved Location Discovery Scheme for Sensor Networks with Long Range Beacons, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 98-106, February 2005. [28] Y. Zhang and L. Cheng, A distributed protocol for multi-hop underwater robot positioning, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, pages 480484, Aug 2004. [29] Z. Zhou, J.-H. Cui, and S. Zhou, Localization for Large-scale Underwater Sensor Networks, UCONN CSE Technical report: UbiNet-TR06-04, December 2006.

AUTHORS

PROPOSED WORK

YEAR

CONCLUSIONS

This scheme divides the whole network into clusters of nodes where each cluster has one or more local aggregation points which will form a small mesh data packets at one or more local sinks which collectively form a virtual sink.

High latency. Acoustic waves propagate underwater at about 1500 m/s, five orders of magnitude slower than radio waves, possibly traveling along curved, irregular paths as well. This results in high transmission delays and delay variance. Sparse and three-dimensional deployment. Underwater sensor nodes are waterproof, resistant to corrosion, and can withstand high water pressures, making them costly and more likely to be deployed in sparse topologies. Furthermore, applications which monitor an ocean column require three-dimensional deployment. Existing data delivery schemes designed for use in terrestrial sensor networks cannot cope with such harsh conditions, thus compeling the development of new schemes. 3. UNDERWATER DATA DELIVERY Data delivery schemes are designed to tackle the problem of relaying data from sensors to sinks. A few data delivery schemes have been proposed for use in UWSNs. We present two schemes: the Multipath Virtual Sink architecture, and Vector Based Forwarding, with a focus on the data delivery aspect how data packets journey from sources to the sink and omit details such as route discovery and query processing.
Forwarding paths Sinks Potential sinks Sensor nodes

(a) Multipath Virtual Sink

Routing pipe Routing pipe Routing Vectors
(Centre of the pipe)

Forwarding paths Sink Sensor nodes

(b) Vector Based Forwarding

Figure 1: Two Data Delivery Schemes 3.1. Multipath Virtual Sink Architecture The Multipath Virtual Sink Architecture (MVS), illustrated in Figure 1a, offers two key ideas: spatially

diverse sinks, and simultaneous retransmission. Key features of MVS include: Multi-path forwarding to spatially diverse sinks. Traffic from sensor nodes typically converge toward a sink, causing congestion in the area around the sink. To resolve this, MVS places sinks at network boundaries, spaced equally apart from one another, and connected to some centralized control via highspeed wired links. This forms a virtual sink. Sensor nodes will then have to deliver data to at least one of the sinks; data flows through multiple diverging paths, reducing contention at sinks, and allowing packets to avoid congested regions. Fixed-path forwarding. A simple reverse-path forwarding mechanism is used to deliver data from source to sink. All nodes maintain a routing table with the next hop for each sink, using number of hops as the forwarding metric. An initialization period takes care of path setup. Forwarding paths remain permanently fixed throughout the network lifetime. Simultaneous retransmission. Harsh channel conditions provide packets a dismal chance of survival over multiple hops. In radio frequency networks, ARQ techniques are used to improve reliability at the link layer, but high and fluctuating delays underwater make re-transmissions grossly inefficient. MVS proposes a novel solution: sources transmit packets simultaneously instead of sequentially, to provide reliability and yet avoid delay and signaling overheads. 2

Performance Analysis of Two Data Delivery Schemes for Underwater Sensor Networks Pius W. Q. Lee_ and Winston K. G. Seah
Department of Computer Science School of Computing National University of Singapore ABSTRACT Underwater Sensor Networks (UWSNs) comprise sensor nodes that communicate over multiple wireless hops to perform collaborative tasks such as environmental monitoring, military surveillance, and oceanic exploration. Acoustic waves are used for underwater transmission, resulting in a communication channel that suffers from limited bandwidth, high delay, and high transmission loss. Existing data delivery schemes designed for terrestrial sensor networks are unsuitable for use in the underwater environment; several new schemes have been proposed for underwater use. In this paper, we provide an analysis of two data delivery schemes: Vector Based Forwarding and the Multipath Virtual Sink architecture, observing performance under varying network size, network density, and traffic load, and conclude by highlighting characteristics from each scheme that are helpful in Underwater Sensor Networks. 1. INTRODUCTION The beautiful and mystical ocean remains one of the most unexplored and inaccessible regions on earth. Underwater Sensor Networks (UWSNs) are proposed as a means for oceanic observation, offering new capabilities such as real time monitoring, remote configuration, and improved robustness. An UWSN comprises sensor nodes mounted on underwater vehicles, attached to surface buoys, or anchored to the seabed which communicate wirelessly and collaborate to observe physical conditions such as temperature, motion, or pollutant levels. UWSNs have a wide variety of useful applications: early warning systems for

natural disasters, environmental monitoring, oil rigging, military surveillance, and scientific oceanic research. Underwater networking research is still in its infancy, with a few data delivery schemes proposed for underwater use, and no single scheme accepted as the standard. In this paper, we provide an analysis of two proposed data delivery schemes: the Multipath Virtual Sink architecture (Seah & Tan, 2006) and Vector Based Forwarding (Xie, Cui, & Li, 2005). We observe various performance metrics reliability, delay, and energy consumption under varying network size, network density, and traffic load, concluding with a summary of the features desirable in an UWSN data delivery scheme. This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we discuss challenges faced in underwater networks. In Section 3, we study two data delivery schemes, providing a comparative analysis in Section 4; finally, we conclude in Section 6 by summarising key ideas in each scheme which prove effective for underwater data delivery. 2. CHALLENGES IN UNDERWATER NETWORKING Propagation of radio waves underwater suffers from high attenuation; hence, acoustic waves are used for communication instead (Stojanovic, 2003), causing UWSNs to have radically different features from terrestrial sensor networks (Akyildiz, Pompili, & Melodia, 2005): Limited bandwidth and low transmission rates. Water absorbs energy from acoustic waves, causing bandwidth to be extremely limited in the underwater channel, with transmission typically on the order of tens of kbps. High transmission loss. Acoustic links experience severe transmission loss due to multi-path, signal attenuation, and geometric spreading. Noise is unpredictable and bursty, coming from marine life, human aquatic activity, and natural phenomena such as storms. These conditions give birth to a harsh environment characterized by high signal loss, fluctuating link quality, and intermittent link connectivity.
_Student Superviso

Limited bandwidth and low transmission rates. Water absorbs energy from acoustic waves,causing bandwidth to be extremely limited in the underwater channel, with transmission typically on the order of tens of kbps. High transmission loss. Acoustic links experience severe transmission loss due to multi-path, signal attenuation, and geometric spreading. Noise is unpredictable and bursty,coming from marine life, human aquatic activity, and natural phenomena such as storms. These conditions give birth to a harsh environment characterized by high signal loss, fluctuating link quality, and intermittent link connectivity. High latency. Acoustic waves propagate underwater at about 1500 m/s, five orders of magnitude Slower than radio waves, possibly traveling along curved, irregular paths as well. This results in high transmission delays and delay variance. Sparse and three-dimensional deployment. Underwater sensor nodes are waterproof, resistant To corrosion, and can withstand high water pressures, making them costly and more likely to be deployed in sparse topologies. Furthermore, applications which monitor an ocean column require three-dimensional deployment.

Vector Based Forwarding (VBF), illustrated in Figure 1b, can be described as a position-based scheme which employs controlled flooding, with the following features: Localization. A key assumption made in VBF is that sensor nodes are capable of measuring both the distance travelled by a signal, and its angle of arrival. With this information, nodes can calculate their position relative to the signal source, without global localization information. Multi-path forwarding within a routing pipe. VBF uses a routing pipe, a cylindrical region centred around a straight line from source to sink, to deliver data along multiple paths. Only nodes within

the routing pipe can forward packets. To achieve this, the pipes centre is attached to packets as a routing vector, specifying coordinates of source, sink, and previous hop (all coordinates are relative to the source). The optimal path comprises a chain of nodes situated along the routing vector and on the fringe of each others transmission range. Variable-path forwarding. Unlike MVS, forwarding paths are not fixed. Rather, every packet transmitted by a node can potentially spawn new paths within the routing pipe. Adapting to network density. As flooding within the routing pipe may cause contention, VBF attempts to estimate local node density and to limit the number of nodes which actually forward packets. Upon receiving a packet, a node calculates its deviation, or desirableness factor, from the optimal path, as a measure of its suitability for forwarding that packet. Nodes nearer to the routing vector and further away from the previous hop are considered more suitable than those further from the routing vector and nearer to the previous hop. The packet is buffered for some time before being forwarded; this time interval, or adaptation delay, is proportional to the desirableness factor, with zero delay for nodes on the optimal path. During this time, the node may overhear neighboring nodes forward the same packet. It may be useless to forward the packet again, thus requiring the node to compare its desirableness factor relative to its neighbours and to decide whether to forward or drop the packet.

2. Underwater acoustic sensor networks communication architecture In this section, we describe the communication architecture of underwater acoustic sensor networks. In particular, we introduce reference architectures for two-dimensional and three dimensional underwater networks, and present several types of

autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) which can enhance the capabilities of underwater sensor networks. The network topology is in general a crucial factor in determining the energy consumption, the capacity and the reliability of a network. Hence, the network topology should be carefully engineered and post-deployment topology optimization should be performed, when possible. Underwater monitoring missions can be extremely expensive due to the high cost of underwater devices. Hence, it is important that the deployed network be highly reliable, so as to avoid failure of monitoring missions due to failure of single or multiple devices. For example, it is crucial to avoid designing the network topology with single points of failure that could compromise the overall functioning of the network. The network capacity is also influenced by the network topology. Since the capacity of the underwater channel is severely limited, as will be discussed in Section 4, it is very important to organize the network topology such a way that no communication bottleneck is introduced. The communication architectures introduced here are used as a basis for discussion of the challenges associated with underwater acoustic sensor networks. The underwater sensor network topology is an open research issue in itself that needs further analytical and simulative investigation from the research community.

In the remainder of this section, we discuss the following architectures: Static two-dimensional UW-ASNs for ocean bottom monitoring. These are constituted by sensor nodes that are anchored to the bottom of the ocean, as discussed in Section 2.1. Typical applications may be environmental monitoring, or monitoring of underwater plates in tectonics [21]. Static three-dimensional UW-ASNs for oceancolumn monitoring. These include networks of sensors whose depth can be controlled by means of techniques discussed in Section 2.2, and may be used for surveillance applications or monitoring of ocean phenomena (ocean biogeochemical processes, water streams, pollution). Three-dimensional networks of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). These networks include fixed portions composed of anchored sensors and mobile portions constituted by autonomous vehicles, as detailed in Section 2.3. 2.1. Two-dimensional underwater sensor networks A reference architecture for two-dimensional underwater networks is shown in Fig. 1. A group of sensor nodes are anchored to the bottom of the ocean with deep ocean anchors. Underwater sensor nodes are interconnected to one or more underwater sinks (uw-sinks) by means of wireless acoustic links. Uw-sinks, as shown in Fig. 1, are network devices in charge of relaying data from

the ocean bottom network to a surface station. To achieve this objective, uw-sinks are equipped with two acoustic transceivers, namely a vertical and a horizontal transceiver. The horizontal transceiver is used by the uw-sink to communicate with 260 I.F. Akyildiz et al. / Ad Hoc Networks 3 (2005) 257279
the sensor nodes in order to: (i) send commands and configuration data to the sensors (uw-sink to sensors); (ii) collect monitored data (sensors to uw-sink). The vertical link is used by the uw-sinks to relay data to a surface station. In deep water applications, vertical transceivers must be long range transceivers as the ocean can be as deep as 10 km. The surface station is equipped with an acoustic transceiver that is able to handle multiple parallel communications with the deployed uwsinks. It is also endowed with a long range RF and/or satellite transmitter to communicate with the onshore sink (os-sink) and/or to a surface sink (s-sink). Sensors can be connected to uw-sinks via direct links or through multi-hop paths. In the former case, each sensor directly sends the gathered data to the selected uw-sink. However, in UW-ASNs, the power necessary to transmit may decay with powers greater than two of the distance [44], and the uw-sink may be far from the sensor node. Consequently, although direct link connection is the simplest way to network sensors, it may not be the most energy efficient solution. Furthermore, direct links are very likely to reduce the net