Effect of mesoscale eddies on .....

underwater
acoustic network
Sudip Misra
1
Amit Kumar Mandal
2
Mihir Dash
3
Tamoghna Ojha
4
1,2,4
School of Information Technology
2,3
Center for Oceans, Rivers, Atmospheric and Land Sciences
Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur - 721302
Email: smisra@sit.iitkgp.ernet.in
1
, amiit.mandal@gmail.com
2
, mihir@coral@iitkgp.ernet.in
3
, tamoghna.ojha@iitkgp.ac.in
4
Abstract
This paper focuses on the performance evaluation of
UWASNs in the presence of mesoscale eddy. Ocean is
a complex medium comprising of different physical and
chemical parameters distributed in a non-uniform fashion.
Spatial gradient of different parameters leads to the genesis
of different static and dyanmical phenomenon. One of
these phenomena is ocean current. When there is ocean
current, moving fastly following meander paths, isolated
swirling bodies of water is quite likely to be generated.
These swirling bodies of water are known as eddies in the
ocean. In deep ocean, these large scaled swirling bodies of
water are denoted as mesoscale eddies. Mesoscale eddies
have signicant impact on the propagation characteristics
of acoustics signal. In such an eddy induced environment,
if sensor nodes are deployed, the transmission character-
istics of sensor nodes are greatly affected by these eddies.
We have evaluated the performance of UWASNs in terms
of three metrics, namely, signal-to-noise-and-interference-
ratio (SINR), bit error rate (BER), and delay.
I. INTRODUCTION
This paper analyzes the performance of UWASNs in the
presence of deep ocean mesoscale eddies. Wiereless sensor
networks consist of small size nodes capable of sensing,
processing and communicating, deployed over some particular
region of interest [] following some architecture.
The major challenging aspects in underwater acoustics com-
munication are summarized below:
Mobility: One of the major idealistic situations in un-
derwater environment is mobility. It is inherent nature of
oceanic environment. Relative velocity among the nodes
makes the communication nodes more complex, due to
the origination of Doppler spread. It also leads to the
perturbation in network architecture. Additionally, there
exists a limitation of available bandwidth.
Acoustic channel property: Occurrence of signal uc-
tuation is also a major issue and it depends on the
type and strength of a particular type of phenomenon
through which signal propagation takes place. In ideal
situation, the average speed of acoustic signal in oceanic
environment is 1500 m/s. Due to speed uctuation of
signal, there is a variation in delay from source to the
receiver.
Signal characteristics: Signal degradation results due to
propagation of acoustic signal through oceanic channel
containing different linear and non-linear phenomena
Signal detection: During propagation through different
eigen paths, signal can be associated with different un-
wanted noise and it leads to the complicacy in detecting
the original signal.
Connectivity issue: Due to uctuation in connectivity
among the nodes, there is random variation in data
communication among the nodes. It greatly affects the
performance metric BER.
Of late there has been a growing interest in the eld of
acoustical oceanography in the perspective of Underwater
Wireless Acoustic Sensor Networks (UWASNs). In the physi-
cal layer perspective, the major concern in UWASNs is inter-
node communication among the nodes. Performance evalua-
tion also takes care of signal perturbation during propagation
through underwater channel. Underwater oceanic channel is
dominated by different phenomena. One of the phenomena
we have considered in this work is mesoscale eddy. They are
mainly originated from ocean current owing in a meandering
fashion. One example is gulf stream meander. Richardson et
al. [1] observed gulf stream eddy in the western sargasso sea.
On the basis of their directions of rotation, they are mainly
divided into two categories: cyclonic and anti-cyclonic [2].
Cyclonic eddies, also known as cold core eddies, are whirling
bodies of water in anti-clockwise direction in the northern
hemisphere. The centers of these eddies are cooler and lower
in height than the outer lying waters. On the other hand anti-
cyclonic eddies rotate in a clockwise manner in the northern-
hemisphere and the center is warmer and higher than outer
layer water. Dynamically the nature of these eddies can be
of two types: static and dynamic. Their dimensions are in the
order of kms. In circular form, a mature phase eddy extends in
the range of 100-200 km in diameter. Studies on ocean eddies
have revealed that, there is a signicant effect of mesoscale
eddies on the sound speed structure in the ocean. The main
reason for sound uctuation is that there is a deviation in
temperature [3] in presence of mesoscale eddies. There exists
sound speed gradient through mesoscale eddies.
II. RELATED WORK AND CONTRIBUTION
To evaluate the performance of UWASNs in the physical
layer context, there should have a proper understanding of
the channel through which inter-node communication takes
place. Variations of underwater channel characteristics are
temporal and spatial in nature. When one channel is induced
by some phenomenon, the other one is induced by some
other phenomenon. Irrespective of the type, existence of any
phenomenon in oceanic channel, make changes of the acoustic
communication characteristics. Therefore, consideration of a
real oceanic phenomenon in a sensor node deployed region is
vital. As, the performance of UWASNs is greatly affected by
this phenomenon.
In [4], Zorzi et al. have taken linear topologies of sensor
nodes and considered noise, propagation delay, and their
impact on transmission power and bandwidth. They have not
considered realistic dynamical phenomenon existing in the
channel. In [5] Xu et al. have evaluated the performance
on UWASNs by considering some metrics, such as, packet
delivery ratio, network throughput, energy consumption, end-
to-end delay. However, the performance evaluation was carried
out in the context of network mobility and other common
aspects relevant to underwater channel. They have not con-
sidered any mesoscale phenomena. In [6], Cui et al. have
described the physical layer performance issues by considering
mainly inherent acoustic bandwidth limitation in underwater,
time variability, i.e., uctuation in delay. So, they have only
given the priority on oceanic channel itself. In addition to
considering the common problems in underwater, such as,
delay, path loss, Doppler spread, in [7] Ancy et al. have
also shown the technique of data transmission in the presence
of shadow zone. However, they have not considered any
dynamical phenomenon in the channel through which data
transmission takes place. In [8], Llor et al. have analyzed the
transmission loss of signal for UWASNs by considering the
environmental factors, such as, surface waves. However, they
have not considered any phenomenon governing the volume
of water. n [9], Ping et al. have analyzed the performance of
underwater channel for UWASNs by taking into consideration
only of propagation delay, multipath fading, and Doppler ef-
fect. However, they have not incorporated any realistic dynam-
ical oceanic phenomenon governing the underwater channel
properties. In [10], Xie et al. have physically model the path
loss between tow sensor nodes at a particular frequency and
time on the basis of statistical method. In predicting path loss
of acoustic signal in underwater, they have only considered
the surface wave activity on the movement of sensor node.
From all the works stated above, it is conrmed that realistic
oceanic phenomenon has been considered in some papers,
however no author or author groups have considered any
kind of mesoscale phanomenon like mesoscale eddies. In our
work we have considered the existence of mesoscale eddy
in the volume of oceanic underwater and its effect on the
performance of UWASNs.
III. NETWORK ENVIRONMENT
from the paper "PerformanceNetworkEnvironmentMulti-
pathRouting"
IV. SIGNAL PROPAGATION THROUGH MESOSCALE EDDIES
A. Physical structure
B. Calculation of acoustic eld
During propagation through the eddy eld, sound speed
as well as pressure distribution of acoustic signal eld get
modied. Fluctuation in temperature speed prole is mainly
due to the deviation of ocean temperature in presence of
mesoscale eddy. Experiments show that cyclonic eddies are
responsible for uplifting of isothermal about a height of 500
m [2]. In this work we have considered the acoustic signal
to be propagating through a Gaussian eddy. Firstly, we have
calculated the speed of acoustic signal through this eddy
and latter on we have calculated the pressure distribution of
acoustic eld.
1) Calculation of acoustic speed:
2) Calculation of acoustic pressure:
V. PROBLEM FORMULATION
Let us consider a uid to be rotating with constant angular
velocity

. The basic uid equations of motion associated are
functions of tangential velocity

V = (u, v, w) and[?] scalar
quantities (, , P, T, c, t)
1
The body-force potential can
be written as:
= gz (1)
In Equation (1), g is the gravitational acceleration.
REFERENCES
[1] P. L. Richardson, A. E. Strong, J. A. Knauss, Gulf stream eddies:
recent observations in the western srgasso sea, Journal of Physical
Oceanography, vol. 3, pp. 297301, July 1973.
[2] R. F. Henrick, W. L. Siegmann, M. J. Jacobson, General analysis
of ocean eddy effect for sound transmission applications, Journal of
Acoustical Society of America, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 860870, July 1977.
[3] I. Frenger, N. Gruber, R. Knutti, M. Mnnich , Imprint of southern
ocean eddies on winds, clouds and rainfall, Nature Geoscience, vol. 6,
pp. 608612, August 2013.
[4] M. Zorzi, N. Baldo, Energy-efcient routing schemes for underwater
acoustic networks, IEEE Journal On Selected Areas In Communication,
vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 17541766, December 2008.
[5] M.Xu, G. Liu, H. Wu, W. Sun, Towards robust routing in three-
dimensional underwater wireless sensor networks, International Jour-
nal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2013, pp. 115, 1
st
October
2013.
[6] J. H. Cui, J. kong, M. Gerla, S. Zhou, The challenges of building
scalable mobile underwater wireless sensor networks for aquatic appli-
cations, IEEE Network, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1218, June 2006.
[7] S. B. Ancy, S. S. Hammed, Energy efcient and reliable communica-
tion in underwater acoustic sensor networks, International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer Engineering & Technology (IJARCET),
vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 169173, January 2013.
1
These quantities are respectively known as body-force potential, density,
pressure, temperature, sound velocity, and time.
[8] J. Llor, M. P. Malumbres, Statistical modeling of large-scale signal path
loss in underwater acoustic networks, Journal of Sensors, vol. 13, pp.
22792294, 7
th
February 2013.
[9] G. X. Ping, Y. Yan, H. R. Lin, Analyzing the performance of channel in
underwater wireless sensor networks, Advanced in Control Engineering
and Information Science, vol. 15, pp. 9599, 2011.
[10] G. Xie, J. Gibson, L. D. Gonzalez, Incorporating realistic acoustic
propagation modelsin simulation of underwater acoustic networks: a
statistical approach, in Proceedings of MTS/IEEE Oceans, Boston, 18-
21
th
September 2006, pp. 19.