Advertisement

CFDAMA-IS: MAC Protocol for Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks

  • Wael GormaEmail author
  • Paul Mitchell
  • Yuriy Zakharov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 263)

Abstract

This paper is concerned with coordinating underwater transmissions of acoustic sensor nodes. The use of acoustic waves to communicate underwater poses challenges to the functionality of Medium Access Control protocols. Long propagation delay and limited channel bandwidth are some of these challenges, which place severe constraints on the trade-off between end-to-end delay and achievable channel utilisation. The Combined Free and Demand Assignment Multiple Access (CFDAMA) protocol is known to significantly enhance the delay/utilisation performance. However, CFDAMA will suffer from long round trip delays and inefficient utilisation of its frames if it is implemented in medium and deep water. The major contribution of this paper is a new approach, namely CFDAMA with Intermediate Scheduler (CFDAMA-IS), to efficiently use CFDAMA in underwater environments. The paper compares these two protocols in typical underwater scenarios. It is shown that the proposed approach significantly reduces mean end-to-end delay and enhances channel utilisation.

Keywords

Underwater Acoustic Networks Medium Access Control 

References

  1. 1.
    Akyildiz, I.F., Pompili, D., Melodia, T.: Underwater acoustic sensor networks: research challenges. Ad Hoc Netw. 3(3), 257–279 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frost, V.S., Melamed, B.: Traffic modeling for telecommunications networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 32(3), 70–81 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gorma, W.M., Mitchell, P.D.: Performance of the combined free/demand assignment multiple access protocol via underwater networks. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Underwater Networks and Systems, WUWNET 2017, pp. 5:1–5:2. ACM, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammoodi, I., Stewart, B., Kocian, A., McMeekin, S.: A comprehensive performance study of OPNET modeler for ZigBee wireless sensor networks. In: 3rd International Conference on Next Generation Mobile Applications, NGMAST 2009, pp. 357–362 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heidemann, J., Stojanovic, M., Zorzi, M.: Underwater sensor networks: applications, advances and challenges. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370(1958), 158–175 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mitchell, P.D., Grace, D., Tozer, T.C.: Comparative performance of the CFDAMA protocol via satellite with various terminal request strategies. In: Global Telecommunications Conference, GLOBECOM 2001, vol. 4, pp. 2720–2724. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitchell, P.D., Grace, D., Tozer, T.C.: Performance of the combined free/demand assignment multiple access protocol with combined request strategies via satellite. In: 12th IEEE International Symposium on PIMRC 2001, vol. 2, pp. F-90–F-94. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell, P.D.: Effective medium access control for geostationary satellite systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of York (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mohammed, J.I., Le-Ngoc, T.: Performance analysis of combined free/demand assignment multiple access (CFDAMA) protocol for packet satellite communications. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications, ICC 1994, SUPERCOMM/ICC 1994 Conference Record, Serving Humanity Through Communications, pp. 869–873. IEEE (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petrioli, C., Petroccia, R., Shusta, J., Freitag, L.: From underwater simulation to at-sea testing using the ns-2 network simulator. In: IEEE OCEANS 2011, pp. 1–9. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pompili, D., Melodia, T., Akyildiz, I.F.: A cdma-based medium access control for underwater acoustic sensor networks. Trans. Wirel. Comm. 8(4), 1899–1909 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rappaport, T.S., et al.: Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice, vol. 2. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rice, J., et al.: Evolution of seaweb underwater acoustic networking. In: Oceans 2000 MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition, vol. 3, pp. 2007–2017 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sozer, E.M., Stojanovic, M., Proakis, J.G.: Underwater acoustic networks. IEEE JOE 25(1), 72–83 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stojanovic, M., Freitag, L.: Multichannel detection for wideband underwater acoustic CDMA communications. IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 31(3), 685–695 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stojanovic, M., Preisig, J.: Underwater acoustic communication channels: propagation models and statistical characterization. IEEE Commun. Mag. 47(1), 84–89 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thorp, W.H.: Deep-ocean sound attenuation in the sub-and low-kilocycle-per-second region. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 38(4), 648–654 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilson, W.D.: Speed of sound in sea water as a function of temperature, pressure, and salinity. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 32(6), 641–644 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronic EngineeringUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations