Advertisement

Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 108, Issue 4, pp 2415–2433 | Cite as

Doppler Scaling Factor Estimation and Receiver Design for Underwater Acoustic Communication

  • Rakesh Samala
  • Siddharth DeshmukhEmail author
Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Due to very low propagation speed of acoustic waves, underwater communication via acoustic waves observe a significant Doppler scaling in the received signal. In addition, due to severe frequency selective fading in underwater acoustic channel, the distinct multi-paths may induce different Doppler scaling factor. In this paper, we investigate a transmission strategy in which we append preamble and post-amble in the data frame to estimate the Doppler scaling factor. The frequency selective fading coefficients and additive noise in the system model are statistically characterized by Nakagami and Generalized Gaussian distribution, respectively. Further, the transmit data is assumed to be orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) modulated to mitigate the frequency selective nature of underlying channel. In our analysis, we consider two scenarios: (1) multi-paths have common Doppler scaling factor and (2) multi-paths have different Doppler scaling factor. For both the scenarios, we propose receiver algorithms to detect OFDM symbols corrupted by multi-path propagation. We also discuss the improvement in bit error rate performance by exploiting maximal ratio combining scheme. Finally, we validate our approach in the proposed techniques by showing improvement in bit error rate performance via simulation under various signal to noise ratio and fading conditions.

Keywords

Doppler scaling Generalized Gaussian noise Frequency selective fading OFDM MRC 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Brady, D., & Preisig, J. C. (1998). Underwater acoustic communications. Wireless Communications: Signal Processing Perspectives, 8, 330–379.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Srojanovic, M. (2009). Underwater acoustic communication channels: Propa-gation models and statistical characterization. Communications Magazine, 47, 84–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singer, A., Nelson, J., & Kozat, S. (2009). Signal processing for underwater acoustic communications. IEEE Communications Magazine, 47, 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Labrador, Y., Karimi, M., Pan, D., & Miller, J. (2009). Modulation and error correction in the underwater acoustic communication channel. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 9, 123–130.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arveson, P., & Vendittis, D. (2000). Radiated noise characteristics of a modern cargoship. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 118–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goold, J., & Fish, P. (1998). Broadband spectra of seismic survey airgun emissions, with reference to dolphin auditory thresholds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, 217784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Middleton, D. (1999). Non-gaussian noise models in signal processing for telecommunications: new methods an results for class a and class b noise models. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 45, 1129–1149.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stein, D. W. J. (1995). Detection of random signals in gaussian mixture noise. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 41, 17881801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Novey, M., Adali, T., & Roy, A. (2010). A complex generalized gaussian distribution-characterization, generation, and estimation. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 58, 14271433.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sharif, B. S., Neasham, J., Hinton, O. R., & Adams, A. E. (2000). A compu-tationally efficient Doppler compensation system for underwater acoustic communications. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 25, 5261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, B., Zhou, S., Stojanovic, M., Freitag, L., & Willett, P. (2008). Multicarier communication over underwater acoustic channels with nonuniform Doppler shift. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 33, 198–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Banerjee, S., & Agrawal, M. (2013). Underwater acoustic noise with generalized Gaussian statistics: Effects on error performance. In OCEANS-Bergen MTS/IEEE (p. 18).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, B., Zhou, S., Stojanovic, M., & Freitag, L. (2006). Pilot-tone based ZP-OFDM demodulation for an underwater acoustic channel. In Proceedings of MTS/IEEE OCEANS conference (p. 1821).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Naveen, V. J., & Rajeswari, K. R. (2011). Generation of Nakagami fading signals with arbitrary correlation and fading parameters. International Journal of Future Generation Communication and Networking, 4, 49–68.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stojanovic, M. (2008). Underwater acoustic communications: Design considerations on the physical layer. In Fifth annual conference on wireless on demand network systems and services, WONS (pp. 1–10).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mazhl, B., Wahlberg, M., Madsen, P. T., Heerfordt, A., & Lund, A. (2003). The monopulsed nature of sperm whale clicks. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(2), 1143–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goold, J. C., & Fish, P. J. (1998). Broadband spectra of seismic survey Airgun emissions, with reference to dolphin auditory thresholds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103(4), 2177–2184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen, Zhuo, Yuan, Jinhong, & Vucetic, B. (2005). Analysis of transmit antennaselection/maximal-ratio combining in Rayleigh fading channels. IEEETransactions on Vehicular Technology, 54, 1312–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringNational Institute of Technology, RourkelaRourkelaIndia

Personalised recommendations