Advertisement

Comparative Analysis of Routing Algorithms for Underwater Sensor Network

  • Gulista KhanEmail author
  • R. K. Dwivedi
  • Kamal Kumar Gola
Chapter

Abstract

Wireless sensor networks give its role in every one’s life. It helps in everyone’s life at straightforward manner. WSNs are mainly used at the places which are not easily reachable to gather the information of surrounding. As all know ¾ portion of world is enclosed by water. So, if we want to know the environmental conditions of underwater, then we need sensor networks used underwater. If we compare terrestrial networks, UWSNs have some restrictions of lesser bandwidth, high broadcast deferral, and stumpy transmission power. Also corresponding to terrestrial sensor networks, one critical problem with underwater sensor networks is discovering a well-organized path between a sender and a receiver. We have reviewed various routing protocols for underwater sensor networks, and we have classified these protocols into two major categories based on position information and without position information. Comparison of all these protocols has been given along with the main idea of research articles and their research gap. After that, some ideas are given on which further research can be done in the field of underwater sensor networks.

References

  1. 1.
    Wahid, A., & Kim, D. (2012). An energy efficient localization-free routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, Article ID 307246, 11 p.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xie, P., Cui, J. H., & Lao, L. (2006). VBF: Vector-based forwarding protocol for underwater sensor, networks. In Proceedings of the IFIP networking Conference, Coimbra, Portugal, pp. 1216–1221, May 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wahid, A., Lee, S., Kim, D. (2011). An energy-efficient routing protocol for UWSNs using physical distance and residual energy. Broadband Wireless Computing Communication and Applications (BWCCA), IEEE, 12 p.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wahid, A., Lee, S., & Kim, D. (2014). A reliable and energy-efficient routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks. International Journal of Communication System, 27(10), 2048–2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ayaz, M., & Abdullah, A. (2009) Hop-by-Hop dynamic addressing based (H2-DAB) routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of 2009 International Conference on Information and Multimedia Technology ICIMT’09, Jeju Island, Korea, pp. 436–441, December 2009.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shin, D., Hwang, D., & Kim, D. (2012). DFR: An efficient directional flooding-based routing protocol in underwater sensor networks. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 12(17), 1517–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, G., & Li, Z. (2010). Depth-based multi-hop routing protocol for underwater sensor network. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Industrial Mechatronics and Automation (ICIMA’10), pp. 268–270, May 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu, H., Chen, M., & Guan, X. (2012). A network coding based routing protocol for underwater sensor networks. Sensors, 12(4), 4559–4577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jornet, J. M., Stojanovic, M., & Zorzi, M. (2008). Focused beam routing protocol for underwater, acoustic networks. In Proceedings of the Mobicom W UWNet’08, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 75–82, September 2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hao, K., Jin, Z., Shen, H., & Wang, T. (2015). An efficient and reliable geographic routing protocol based on partial network coding for underwater sensor networks. Sensors 2015, 15, 12720–12735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jafri, M. R., Ahmed, S., Javaid, N., Ahmad, Z., & Qureshi, R. J. (2013). AMCTD: Adaptive mobility of courier nodes in threshold optimized DBR protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE 8th International Conference on Broadband, Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications (BWCCA’13), IEEE, pp. 93–99, October 2013.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moeenuddin, T. (2015). Distance based reliable and energy efficient (DREE) routing protocol for underwater acoustic sensor networks. Journal of Networks, 10(5), May 2015.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kheirabadi, M. T., & Mohamad, M. M. (2013). Greedy routing in underwater acoustic sensor networks: A survey. Journal of distributed Sensor Networks, 2013, 21 p, Article ID 701834.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ilyas, N., Akbar, M., Ullah, R., Khalid, M., Arif, A., Hafeez, A., et al. (2015). SEDG: Scalable and efficient data gathering routing protocol for underwater WSNs. Procedia Computer Science, 52, 584–591 (Elsevier).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ilyas, N., Alghamdi, T. A., Farooq, M. N., Mehboob, B., Sadiq, A. H., Qasim, U., et al. (2015). AEDG: AUV-aided efficient data gathering routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks. Procedia Computer Science, 52, 568–575 (Elsevier).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nicolaou N., See, A., Xie, P., Cui, J. H., & Maggiorini, D. (2007). Improving the robustness of location-based routing for underwater sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE OCEANS’07, Europe, pp. 1–6, 2007.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coutinho, R. W. L., Boukerche, A., Vieira, L. F. M., & Loureiro, A. A. F. (2014). GEDAR: Geographic and opportunistic routing protocol with depth adjustment for mobile underwater sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’14), IEEE, Sydney, Australia, International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, pp. 251–256, 11 June 2014.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gopi, S., Govindan, K., Chander, D., Desai, U. B., & Merchant, S. N. (2010). E-PULRP: Energy optimized path unaware layered routing protocol for underwater sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 9(11), 3391–3401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sun, X,. Huang, S. C.-H., & Li, M. (2012). Data collection time in sensor networks. In Wireless algorithms, systems, and applications (pp. 120–131). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ali, T., Jung, L. T., & Ameer, S. (2012). Flooding control by using angle based cone for UWSNs. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Telecommunication Technologies (ISTT’12), IEEE, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 112–117, November 2012.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, U., Wang, P., Noh, Y., Vieira, L. F. M., Gerla, M., & Cui, J.-H. (2010). Pressure routing for underwater sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, 2010, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu, X., Chen, G., & Chen, J. (2010). Energy-efficient and topology aware routing for underwater sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN’10), August 2010.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Du, X.-J., Huang, K.-J., Lan, S.-L., Feng, Z.-X., & Liu, F. (2014). LB-AGR: Level-based adaptive geo-routing for underwater sensor network. The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications, 21(1), 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Noh, Y., Lee, U., Wang, P., Choi, B., & Gerla, M. (2013). VAPR: Void aware pressure routing for underwater sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 12(5), 895–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yan, H., Shi, Z., & Cui, J. H. (2008). DBR: Depth-based routing f or underwater sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IFIP Networking’08 Conference, Singapore, pp. 72–86, May 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gulista Khan
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. K. Dwivedi
    • 2
  • Kamal Kumar Gola
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science and Engineering Department, Faculty of EngineeringTeerthanker Mahaveer UniversityMoradabadIndia
  2. 2.CCSITTeerthanker Mahaveer UniversityMoradabadIndia

Personalised recommendations