IDENTIFYING THE OPTIMAL TRANSMISSION RANGE IN DEPTH-BASED

ROUTING FOR UWSN

Mohsin Jafri, Simonetta Balsamo and Andrea Marin

DAIS, Università Ca' Fos ari Venezia, Italy
email: mohsin.jafriunive.it, balsamounive.it, marinunive.it

KEYWORDS makes strategies based on the identi ation and stor-

Depth-Based Routing, optimal transmission range, ing of routes hard to apply in pra ti e. Routes are
power ontrol, energy e ien y, underwater a ousti ontinuously broken and new ones are reated (Pompili
networks. and Akyildiz 2009). In the literature, several strategies
have been proposed in order to introdu e new routing
ABSTRACT proto ols or to optimize previously proposed ones in-
luding spe i node deployment strategies, lo alization
Routing in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks s hemes and transmission range sele tion.
(UWSNs) is a hallenging problem be ause of the in- Depth-Based Routing (DBR) (Yan et al. 2008) is a
trinsi hara teristi s of this lass of wireless networks lo alization-free routing s heme and only relies on depth
(long propagation delay, mobility of nodes, et .) and be- information of nodes in order to transfer data from the
ause of the performan e indi es that must be taken into sour e to the sink node. When a node transmits a pa ket
a ount, su h as the network throughput, the pa ket de- all of its neighbors an re eive it due to the broad ast
livery ratio and the energy ost. In parti ular, routing nature of the onsidered a ousti transmission, however
algorithms must grant a low energy ost in order to max- only the low-depth neighbors are eligible for forwarding.
imise the lifetime of the network's nodes. This allows the algorithm to ontrol the ooding and re-
In this study we fo us on a popular routing proto ol du e the probability of interferen es. In DBR we assume
for UWSNs, namely the Depth-Based Routing (DBR). that ea h node does not have knowledge of its absolute
Spe i ally, we study the impa t of the transmission position in the water but knows its depth thanks to a
range of the nodes on the network performan e indi es, pressure-based sensor. When a pa ket is sent, the pro-
with parti ular attention to its energy e ien y. The to ol aims at sele ting the neighbor whi h is nearest
study is based on an extensive set of simulations per- to the surfa e as forwarder so that the number of hops
formed in AquaSim-NG using a library that has been is redu ed and, as a onsequen e, the end-to-end delay
developed with the aim of providing an a urate esti- and the energy onsumption are also redu ed. The for-
mation of the nodes' energy onsumption and is inte- warder sele tion is based on two strategies: the rst is
grated with the tools previously developed for the study the introdu tion of the depth threshold whi h states the
of UWSNs. The main out ome of our work is showing depth over whi h a node annot be a forwarder, while
the relation between transmission range providing the the se ond is the holding time, i.e., a delay whose du-
optimal DBR energy e ien y and the density of the ration is proportional to the depth dieren e between
nodes in a UWSN. the sender and the andidate forwarder. Hen e, when a
node re eives a pa ket that must be forwarded, it waits
INTRODUCTION for the expiration of the holding time and de ides to re-
transmit the pa ket only if no other node in its re eiving
Routing proto ols in UWSNs aim at providing high range has previously forwarded it.
network onne tivity, low energy onsumption and low DBR is onsidered as the pioneer and one of the most
pa ket delay by apitalizing the intrinsi hara teristi s reliable s hemes in the ategory of opportunisti rout-
of a ousti ommuni ation. From the fun tional point of ing algorithms for UWNSs and is still largely studied in
view, routing proto ols in UWSNs have to transmit the the re ent literature about UWSNs. A detailed survey
sensed data olle ted by the underwater nodes to some on depth based routing and other opportunisti routing
sink nodes on the surfa e whi h will eventually transmit proto ols an be found in (Coutinho et al. 2016). In
them to the base-station to be pro essed. Underwater parti ular, the authors lassify the opportunisti rout-
nodes are usually equipped with batteries whi h are dif- ing s hemes a ording to their andidate and forwarder
 ult to repla e or re harge and for this reason energy sele tion pro edures.
preservation must be a key-fa tor in the design of rout- The a tual deployment of a UWSN using DBR must
ing algorithms and a simple ooding strategy turns to fa e some design problems on erning the identi ation
be highly ine ient. Moreover, the mobility of nodes of the optimal onguration parameters for the proto ol
su h as the onstants for the omputation of the hold- ing the expe ted number of intermediate hops towards
ing time and the depth threshold value. However, it base station. However, E-ITRC adopt a dynami trans-
should be lear that also the onguration of the physi- mission range adjustment and hen e, with respe t to
al layer parameters ae ts the performan e of the net- DBR, it requires a mu h more sophisti ated proto ol
work. Spe i ally, the node transmission range strongly implementation. Gao et.al (Gao et al. 2012) provide
inuen es the energy ost of the proto ol. High trans- an analyti al model for the evaluation of the network
mission ranges onsume more energy and in rease the power onsumption. Based on this model, they propose
probability of interferen es but allows DBR to over a method for obtaining the optimal transmission range
longer distan es with one hop. This onsideration sug- for a randomly deployed network. Finally, they examine
gests that there must exist optimal values for the trans- the impa t of the transmission range on some relevant
mission ranges (see (Zorzi and Pupolin 1995) for an performan e indi es su h as the energy e ien y and
analyti al model of terrestrial networks addressing this the network onne tivity. However, only one hop trans-
problem). Another important observation is that the missions have been onsidered and the abstra tion of
optimal transmission range depends on the node den- the analyti al model makes it hard to derive a pra ti al
sity, sin e lower densities imply longer transmission ra- rule for setting the proto ol parameters.
dius in order to avoid pa ket losses due to the absen e Although all of these papers aim at spe ifying the op-
of eligible neighbours in the sender range. timal transmission range for the ombination of some
MAC layers and routing proto ol, still to the best of
RELATED WORK our knowledge there is no work onsidering DBR op-
timal transmission ranges by taking into a ount the
Harris et.al (Harris III and Zorzi 2007) propose a simu- detailed implementation of the network (e.g., busy ter-
lation model to ompute an a urate transmission power minal problems and so on). To over this gap, we adopt
required to meet the SNR threshold of 20dB at the our implementation (Jafri 2017) of DBR in AquaSim-
re eiver for various intermediate distan es among the NG (Martin et al. 2015) whi h is a NS3 (Carneiro 2010)
nodes. They also devise a model for an a ousti hannel based simulator and its libraries have been designed
and provide its omprehensive implementation in NS2 with a more e ient and detailed simulation framework
by employing passive sonar equation. We use this work for UWSNs. AquaSim-NG is an enhan ed version of
for modelling the orre t transmission events in our sim- AquaSim (Xie et al. 2009) whi h is a spe ialized sim-
ulation model. ulator for underwater networks and ontains omplete
In the literature of underwater networks, aspe ts of layered ar hite ture.
physi al layer have been taken into a ount for improv-
ing the performan e of routing and MAC proto ols. To
this aim, e ient lo alization strategies, optimal trans- Contributions In this paper we address the prob-
mission range sele tion and design of operational modes lem of estimating the optimal transmission range for
of a ousti modems showed to be helpful in in reasing DBR based UWSNs by resorting to a detailed simula-
the network lifetime, improving the robustness of its tion model that takes into a ount a broad set of rel-
onne tivity and de reasing the end-to-end delay. evant aspe ts of a tual network deployments. To this
Porto et.al (Porto and Stojanovi 2007) propose an ex- aim, we extended the DBR implementation of AquaSim-
tended form of Distan e-Aware Collision Avoidan e Pro- NG (Martin et al. 2015) in order to in lude an a urate
to ol (DACAP) by augmenting it with optimized trans- modelling of nodes' energy onsumption taking into a -
mission power and range sele tion for sensor nodes. The ount the operational modes of the modems. The sim-
ne ontrol of these parameters leads to an improvement ulator is open a ess and an be downloaded from the
of the energy e ien y while the network onne tivity o ial repository of AquaSim-NG (Martin 2016, Jafri
is preserved. Similarly to the out ome we have in this 2017). We emphasized the ross-layer intera tions be-
paper, the authors nd out that the sele tion of the tween the physi al and the routing layer. Finally, our
optimal transmission range in DACAP depends on the simulation model is able to ta kle the problem of the
network density. However, in ontrast with DACAP, it busy terminal whi h is well-known to be important for
is not ne essary true for DBR that the optimal trans- the estimation of the network energy e ien y (Yan
mission range is the minimum radius that ensures the et al. 2008). We have onsidered several s enarios and
network onne tivity as it will be evident from our ex- we have experimentally derived a relation between the
periments. In (Kim et al. 2007), the authors suggest optimal transmission range and the node density.
a novel routing s heme supplied with adjustable trans-
mission range te hnique for sensor nodes with the aim DBR AND ITS SIMULATION MODEL

of minimizing the end-to-end delay and in reasing the

energy e ien y. The proposed Energy e ient Inno- In this se tion we briey re all DBR and present the
vative Time Redu tion Communi ation (E-ITRC) pro- main features of our simulation model. We take a bot-
to ol exploits the relay-based ommuni ation for redu - tom up approa h based on the layer partition of the
proto ol sta k. Parti ular attention will be devoted to f
Noti e that transmission frequen y ( ) dominantly af-
the analysis of the power onsumption and the loss prob- fe ts the level of noise as higher frequen y tends to in-
ability at the physi al layer. rease the noise loss of signal. Moreover passive sonar
equation also uses Dire tivity Index (DI) whi h shows
Modelling the power onsumption at the physi- the ability of re eiver's hydrophone to avoid unwanted
al layer noise. We assume its value as 3 dB (Domingo and Prior
2008).
At the physi al layer, the transmission power onsump- The transmission power required to a hieve a target
tion of an a ousti signal in UWSNs is omputed by us- d
SNR at re eiver over distan e an be omputed us-
ing the passive sonar equation presented in (Harris III ing the algorithm (1) as follows (Harris III and Zorzi
and Zorzi 2007, Domingo and Prior 2008) whi h gives 2007):
the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) at the re eiver based
on some parameters among whi h a major role is played Algorithm 1 Computation of transmission power on-
by the transmission power and the Attenuation-Noise sumption
(AN) fa tor. This last fa tor is omputed a ording to 1: AN[i] ← Attenuation Noise f actor f or ith f requency
the well-known Thorp's formula (Harris III and Zorzi 2: o f signal bandwidth
2007): 3: k ← Spreading coe f f icient
4: d ← Euclidean distance between nodes
10 log10 α( f ) =
5: T hor p( f [i]) ← attenuation loss f or ith f requency

 0.11 f 2 /(1 + f 2 ) + 44 f 2 /(4100 + f 2 ) 6: o f signal bandwidth



 +2.75 ∗ 10−4 f 2 + 0.003
 if f ≥ 0.4kHz 7: Noise( f [i]) ← noise loss f or ith f requency o f signal
 8: bandwidth



 0.002 + 0.11( f /(1 + f )) + 0.011 f 9: Pr ← SN R threshold o f receiver
 if f < 0.4kHz
10: Pt ← Transmission power required to success f ull y
where f is the frequen y measures in kHz and α( f ) is 11: transmit signal
measured in dB/km. 12: Num_ f req ← Number o f f requencies in the
Total attenuation A(l, f ) is omputed by ombining the 13: bandwidth o f signal
total absorption loss α( f ) and the spreading loss: 14: DI ← Directivit y Index

10log A(l, f ) = k ∗ 10log(l) + l ∗ 10log(α( f )) , (1) 15: for i ← 0 to Num_ f req do

where k is the spreading oe ient. Following (Har- 16: AN[i ℄ ← − (k ∗ 10 ∗ log10 (d) + d ∗ Thorp(f [i ℄) +
ris III and Zorzi 2007), we ompute the total attenuation DI + log10 (Noise(f [i ℄)));
17: if AN[i] > AN[max _index] then
in dbreµPa whi h is the standard unit used to ompute
the signal loss in a ousti ommuni ations. The rst 18: max _index ← i
term of Equation (1) models the spreading loss and the 19: end if

se ond the attenuation loss. 20: end for

The noise model onsists of four main omponents: the 21: Pt = Pr − AN[max _index ℄;
wind fa tor (Nw ( f )), the shipping fa tor (Ns ( f )), the 22: return Pt;
thermal fa tor (Nth ( f )) fa tor and the turbulen e (Nt ( f ))
fa tor whi h are dened as follows: Algorithm (1) a urately predi ts the required transmis-
sion power onsidering various distan es between the
10log(Nt ( f )) = 17 − 30log( f ) ,
ommuni ating nodes. Figure 1 shows the transmis-
10log(Ns ( f )) = 40 + 20(s − 0.5) + 26log( f ) sion power required to su essfully a hieve the signal
−60log( f + 0.03) , strength of 20 dbreµPa at the re eiver. By targeting
10log(Nw ( f )) = 50 + 7.5w 1/2 + 20log( f ) spe i SNR at the re eiver, the passive sonar equa-
tion gives the required transmission power whi h ma-
−40log( f + 0.4) ,
jorly in reases with the distan e (see, e.g., (Uri k 1983,
10log(Nth ( f )) = −15 + 20log( f ) , Brekhovskikh and Lysanov 2003, Harris III and Zorzi
2007)).
where s is the shipping onstant and its value varies from
0 to 1. w is the wind onstant having a positive value
DBR network layer and its simulation model
whi h shows the speed of wind. A dis ussion about pra -
ti al values assumed by these onstants an be found
in (Harris III and Zorzi 2007). Finally, to ompute the In DBR, nodes use pressure-based sensors to estimate
total noise loss NLwe ombine these omponents: their depth and rely on this information to transmit the
pa kets to the on-surfa e sink. As DBR is a ontrolled-
N L = Nt ( f ) + Ns ( f ) + Nw ( f ) + Nth ( f ) . ooding based s heme the orre t setting of its param-
 130
range, on the network performan e expressed in terms of
the expe ted pa ket delivery ratio and the energy ost.
120
Transmit power (dB re mu Pa)

PROBLEM STATEMENT
110

100
When we deploy an UWSN using DBR routing proto-
ol, the setting of the network layer parameters, i.e.,
90 the holding time and the depth threshold, is helpful to
minimize the energy onsumption but may be not su-
80
ient. In fa t, the sele tion of an optimum transmission
70
range at the physi al layer may drasti ally redu e the
network energy ost (and hen e its lifetime) while main-
60 taining a reasonably high pa ket delivery ratio. Trans-
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (m) mission range plays a pivotal role in determining the
energy onsumption and the pa ket delivery ratio in a
Figure 1: Required transmission power for various dis- UWSN implementing DBR. Let us fo us on the energy
tan es ost dened as the expe ted energy required to su ess-
fully send a pa ket to the sink node. Short transmis-
sion ranges ause problems in the network onne tiv-
eters, namely the and the depth threshold
, holding time ity and hen e frequently require pa ket retransmissions
plays a pivotal role for obtaining high performan e with that ause a high energy onsumption. On the other
a low energy onsumption. Intuitively, the forwarder hand very long transmission ranges require more energy
sele tion is based on the pa ket s heduled sending time per pa ket and ause the in rease of the number of re-
whi h is de ided on the basis of omputation of the hold- dundant transmissions aused by hidden terminals. In
ing time. The pa ket holding time is proportional to this work, we seek the optimal value of the transmis-
the depth dieren e between the sender and the andi- sion range given a ertain node density that results in
date forwarder and hen e it favors the nodes that al- a low energy onsumptions and maintains a reasonable
low the pa kets to over longer distan es towards the high pa ket delivery ratio. Moreover, an appropriate
sinks. The depth threshold is used to prevent nodes with hoi e of the transmission range redu es the busy ter-
low depth dieren e to be ome andidate forwarders. minal problem (Zhu et al. 2014) by limiting the burden
During the holding time duration, nodes dis ard the on more stressed nodes from the network tra .
enqueued pa ket upon nding its transmission from a
lower depth neighbor. DBR targets lowest depth neigh- SIMULATION EXPERIMENTS
bor of sender as an optimal pa ket forwarder whi h is
also helpful in suppressing transmissions of other eligi- In this se tion we address the problem of identifying the
ble neighbors of sender node. Thanks to its stateless optimal transmission range of sensor nodes with respe t
and distributed nature, DBR is apable of handling the to the energy ost of the network by resorting to the
routing in UWSNs with high node mobility and main- simulation model introdu ed in Se tion . Together with
tains a low resour e usage (there is no need to store this optimization we also study the pa ket delivery ratio
routing tables) and easiness of implementation. for the optimal transmission ranges. The pa ket deliv-
A ording to (Yan et al. 2008) in DBR the holding time ery ratio is a good measure for observing the impa t
is obtained as follows: of the busy terminal espe ially for what on erns long
  transmission ranges.
2τ
fDBR (d) = ∗ (T − d) ,
δ
Simulation s enarios and performan e indi es
where T is the maximal transmission range of a node,
τ is the maximum propagation delay of one hop, i.e., We study UWSNs with various numbers of nodes de-
τ = T /v0 (where v0 is the sound propagation speed in ployed in a xed spa e of 500m × 500m × 500m a ord-
the water), d is the depth dieren e between the sender ing to a uniform random distribution. The number of
and the re eiver and δ is a s aling fa tor of the holding nodes varies from 100 to 800 and hen e we re reate the
times whi h is hosen in order to a hieve the optimal s enarios that are similar to those that have been pre-
performan e of the network and to minimize the hidden viously studied for other purposes in (Yan et al. 2008).
terminal problem. The analysis of the impa t of these The depth-threshold is 1/4 of the maximum transmis-
onguration parameters on the network performan e sion range, and the mobility pattern is a random walk.
has been done in (Yan et al. 2008). Nevertheless, in For MAC layer, we implement Broad ast MAC proto-
this paper we fo us on the impa t of a onguration ol (Mirza et al. 2009) whi h e iently supports the
parameter at the physi al layer, namely the transmission fun tioning of ooding-based routing proto ols. The
 Parameter Value
1000
Network size 500m ×500m ×500m Energy cost for 800 nodes

Deployment Random uniform 900

Energy cost for 700 nodes
Energy cost for 600 nodes

Initial energy of nodes 500J Energy cost for 500 nodes

Pa ket size 64 Bytes 800

Energy cost (Joules)

Node mobility speed 2 m/s
700
Re eiving power onsumption 0.1 W
Idle power onsumption 1 mW 600
Mobility pattern Random walk
δ Transmission range 500

f 3kHz
400

Table 1: Simulation Parameters 300

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Transmission range (meters)

sour e node is pla ed in the bottom of the network. Figure 2: Energy ost of the network as a fun tion of
Multiple on-surfa e sinks have been deployed and the the transmission range.
sour e node transmits a single pa ket after every two
se onds. Table 1 summarizes the experiment setting.
In order to identify the optimal transmission range, we in reases with the sharp in rease in the transmission
ompute the following performan e indi es: (i) Energy range thanks to availability of multiple paths between
ost of network dened as the expe ted energy required sour e node and the sinks. However, after rea hing at
to su essfully deliver a pa ket measured in Joule per the maximum point, it de lines due to the redundant
pa ket, (ii) Pa ket delivery ratio and (iii) Total number transmissions and problems aused by the busy termi-
of transmissions of network. nals. Interestingly, the transmission range asso iated
For ea h measurement we performed 20 independent with the optimal pa ket delivery ratio is oherent with
experiments and build the onden e intervals at 95% the value whi h optimize the energy ost. It is also worth
whose width is always below 7% of the measured value. of noti e that as observed in (Zhu et al. 2014) there is
a strong orrelation between high pa ket delivery ratio
Impa t of transmission range on the energy ost and redu tion of the busy terminal problem. It is worth-
of network, pa ket delivery ratio and total num- while of noti e that the pa ket delivery ratios de rease
ber of transmissions after rea hing the maximum but appear to be ome more
stable. Also for what on erns the optimal pa ket de-
In this experiment we study the network energy ost as livery ratio, the experiments suggest that the networks
fun tion of the transmission range of the sensor. with density of 500 nodes outperform those with higher
Figure 2 shows the results of our experiments, i.e., the densities in ase of transmission ranges longer than 200
estimates of the energy ost of the network as a fun - and this may suggest that nding the optimal densities
tion of the transmission range for networks with 500 to ould be an interesting problem for future works. Nev-
800 nodes. We observe that for very low transmission ertheless, we should observe that a network with high
ranges the ost of retransmissions due to broken routes node density tends to be more robust to failures and
be omes prohibitive from the point of view of the energy hen e other performan e indi es should be analyzed be-
onsumed by the networks, whereas as the transmission fore drawing on lusions.
range in reases we have both to fa e the problem of Figure 4 shows the total number of transmissions per-
the higher ost for the transmission of the single pa ket formed in the network for 200s of simulation time. We
and the explosion of the number of retransmissions due an observe an initial in rease of the amount of the
to the hidden terminal problem and the onsequent in- transmissions due to the in reased number of eligible for-
reased number of ollisions. We an also observe that warders of the sender nodes. However, this value tends
as the density of the nodes in reases, the ost for redun- to qui kly stabilize although it shows an irregular pat-
dant transmissions and the onsequent ollisions be ome tern that probably depends on the average depth of the
dominant in in reasing the energy ost of the network forwarding nodes.
even in its optimal working point. For the four onsid-
ered network densities we have an optimal transmission Optimal transmission range as fun tion of the
range of approximatively 180 meters. We will see later node density
on that above a ertain density of nodes the optimal
transmission range tend to stabilize to this value under In order to experimentally study the onne tion between
the assumptions of Table 1. the optimal transmission range and the network node
Consulting Figure 3, the pa ket delivery ratio qui kly density we have run a large set of simulations for ea h
 given density and identied the optimal value for the
1 energy ost. This has been done by assuming the on-
vexity of the fun tion Ec = f (r), where Ec is the energy
0.9
ost as fun tion of the transmission radius r . Then we
0.8 have pro eeded by using a bise tion method.
Figure 5 shows the optimal transmission range for var-
Packet delivery ratio

0.7
ious numbers of deployed nodes. We observe that for
0.6
networks with a number of nodes higher than 500 the
0.5 optimal transmission range stabilizes at approximatively
0.4
180 meters. As observed in Se tion , this value optimizes
both the network energy ost and its pa ket delivery ra-
0.3 Packet delivery ratio for 800 nodes
Packet delivery ratio for 700 nodes tio. As the number of deployed nodes de reases, the
0.2
Packet delivery ratio for 600 nodes
Packet delivery ratio for 500 nodes optimal transmission range in reases to 240 meters as-
50 100 150 200 250 so iated with 100 nodes as number of intermediate for-
Transmission range (meters) warders de reases ausing the de rease in total energy
onsumption of network.
Figure 3: Pa ket delivery ratio with dierent node den- A ording to our experiments if ρ is the network node
sities. density expressed in expe ted number of nodes for km3 ,
we an say that the optimal transmission range r ∗ for
DBR de reases with higher ρ as:
14000 r ∗ ∝ ρ1/6 .
12000 In Figure 5 we plot the fun tion 745/ρ1/6 and we an see
that it provides a good approximation of the estimates
Number of total transmissions

10000 of the optimal range. We observe that this result is quite

dierent from the empiri law proposed in (Porto and
8000
Stojanovi 2007) for DACAP where the optimal trans- √
6000
mission range was found to de rease with β as 1/ β
where β is the 2-dimensional node density.
4000
Number of total transmissions for 800 nodes
Number of total transmissions for 700 nodes CONCLUSION
Number of total transmissions for 600 nodes
2000 Number of total transmissions for 500 nodes

50 100 150 200 250

In this work we have studied the impa t of the ong-
Transmission range (meters) uration of the nodes' physi al layer parameters on the
performan e of DBR routing proto ol. In parti ular,
Figure 4: Total number of transmissions of network with we have fo used our attention to three performan e in-
dierent node density. di es: the network energy ost dened as the amount
of energy spent by the network to su essfully deliver a
pa ket, the pa ket delivery ratio and the total number
of transmissions in a simulation period of 200s. In order
Estimates of optimal range
to rea h our goal, a new simulator based on AquaSim-
260
Approximating function
NG has been developed that with respe t to its prede-
Optimal transmission range (meters)

240
essors provides an a urate modelling of the modem
operational modes, the ross-layer intera tions required
220
by this proto ol and the busy terminal problem. The
simulator an be downloaded at the o ial repository
200 of AquaSim-NG (Martin 2016).
Spe i ally, we have addressed the problem of determin-
180 ing the optimal transmission range providing the lowest
energy ost given the network density. To this aim we
160 rst studied the behavior of the energy ost as a fun tion
of the transmission range for networks with given node
densities and empiri ally veried that this optimal value
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Number of nodes
exists. Then, we have looked for this optimum value for
Figure 5: Optimal transmission range for dierent node dierent node densities. We observed that, a ording
densities with minimum energy ost. to our experiments, the transmission ranges that mini-
mize the energy osts are also those that maximize the
pa ket delivery ratio. Finally, we studied the relation Martin R.; Zhu Y.; Pu L.; Dou F.; Peng Z.; Cui J.H.;
between the network density and the optimal transmis- and Rajasekaran S., 2015. Aqua-Sim Next Genera-
sion range. As expe ted, we found that sparse networks tion: A NS-3 Based Simulator for Underwater Sen-
require higher optimal transmission ranges, but that this sor Networks. In Pro eedings of the 10th Interna-
values tends to de rease slowly with denser networks. tional Conferen e on Underwater Networks & Sys-
From the experiments that we run, we observed that the tems. ACM, 1822.
optimal transmission range de reases as 1/ρ1/6 where ρ
is the expe ted number of nodes for km3 . Future works Mirza D.; Lu F.; and S hurgers C., 2009. E ient
in lude the development of an analyti al model to vali- broad ast MAC for underwater networks. Pro edings
date this empiri al law. of ACM WUWNet, Berkeley, CA, USA.
We believe that the out omes of this work, ombined Pompili D. and Akyildiz I.F., 2009. Overview of net-
with the previously developed optimizations at the net- working proto ols for underwater wireless ommuni-
work layer studied in (Yan et al. 2008), an be helpful in
the optimization of the power onsumption in UWSNs
ations. IEEE Communi ations Magazine, 47, no. 1,
97102.
adopting DBR routing proto ol.
Optimizing the trans-
Porto A. and Stojanovi M., 2007.
REFERENCES mission range in an underwater a ousti network. In
OCEANS 2007. IEEE, 15.
Brekhovskikh L.M. and Lysanov, 2003. Fundamentals Uri k R.J., 1983. Prin iples of underwater sound.
of o ean a ousti s
. Springer.
M Graw-Hill.
Carneiro G., 2010. NS-3: Network simulator 3. In UTM
Lab Meeting April. vol. 20. Xie P.; Zhou Z.; Peng Z.; Yan H.; Hu T.; Cui J.H.; Shi
Z.; Fei Y.; and Zhou S., 2009. Aqua-sim: an NS-2
Coutinho R.W.; Bouker he A.; Vieira L.F.; and based simulator for underwater sensor networks . In
Loureiro A.A., 2016.Design guidelines for opportunis- Pro eedings of the IEEE O eans 2009 . IEEE, 17.
ti routing in underwater networks IEEE Communi-
.
Yan H.; Shi Z.J.; and Cui J.H., 2008. DBR: Depth-
ations Magazine , 54, no. 2, 4048.
Based Routing for underwater sensor networks. In
Domingo M.C. and Prior R., 2008. Energy analysis of Adho and Sensor Networks, Springer. 7286.
routing proto ols for underwater wireless sensor net- Zhu Y.; Cui J.H.; Peng Z.; and Zhou Z., 2014. Busy Ter-
works. Computer ommuni ations, 31, no. 6, 1227 minal Problem and Impli ations for MAC Proto ols in
1238. Underwater A ousti Networks. In Pro eedings of the
Gao M.; Foh C.H.; and Cai J., 2012. On the sele tion International Conferen e on Underwater Networks &
of transmission range in underwater a ousti sensor Systems. ACM, 111.
networks. Sensors, 12, no. 4, 47154729. Zorzi M. and Pupolin S., 1995. Optimum transmission
Harris III A.F. and Zorzi M., 2007. Modeling the under-
ranges in multihop pa ket radio networks in the pres-
water a ousti hannel in ns2. In Pro eedings of the en e of fading. IEEE Transa tions on Communi a-
2nd international onferen e on Performan e evalua- tions, 43, no. 7, 22012205.
tion methodologies and tools. ICST, 1826.
Jafri M., 2017. AquaSim Next Generation : Li-
braries, DBR implementation by Mohsin Jafri.
https://github. om/rmartin5/aqua-sim-ng/
blob/master/model/aqua-sim-routing-ddbr. .
A essed: 2017-04-04.

Kim D.; Cho Y.M.; Kim C.; Kim S.; Park S.H.; and
Kang T.W., 2007. E-ITRC Proto ol with Long & Ad-
justable Range on Underwater A ousti Sensor Net-
work. In Advan ed Information Networking and Ap-
pli ations Workshops, 2007, AINAW'07. 21st Inter-
national Conferen e on. IEEE, vol. 2, 665672.
Martin R., 2016. AquaSim Next Generation : Libraries,
by Robert Martin. https://github. om/rmartin5/
aqua-sim-ng. A essed: 2016-12-05.