Scalability Analysis of Depth-Based Routing and Energy-Efficient Depth-Based Routing Protocols in Terms of Delay, Throughput, and Path Loss in Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks

Part of the EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series (EAISICC)


In underwater acoustic sensor networks (UWASNs), nodes are either static or dynamic depending upon the network configuration and type of application. Direct or multi-hop transmissions are used to forward data toward the sink. Alternatively, sinks can also be mobile or static, depending on whether the application is real time or passive. The variety of nodes and sink deployments greatly affect the performance of routing protocols. In this chapter, we analyze the effects of node density and scalability on the performance of routing protocols in UWASNs. Two popular UWASNs protocols were selected for this purpose: the depth-based routing protocol (DBR) and energy-efficient depth-based routing protocol (EEDBR). DBR is a non-cluster-based technique that performs routing using only the depth of nodes, whereas EEDBR is a location-free scheme that uses both the depth and the residual energy of nodes to route data. The scalability of node deployment was used to check the efficiency of these schemes in the context of three parameters: packet delivery ratio, end-to-end delay, and path loss.


Stability period UWASN Throughput Path loss End-to-end delay 


  1. 1.
    Khan, F., Ur Rehman, A., Usman, M., Tan, Z., & Puthal, D. (2018). Performance of cognitive radio sensor networks using hybrid automatic repeat ReQuest: Stop-and-wait. Mobile Networks and Applications, 23(3), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Javaid, N., Jafri, M. R., Khan, Z. A., Qasim, U., Alghamdi, T. A., & Ali, M. (2014). Iamctd: Improved adaptive mobility of courier nodes in threshold-optimized dbr protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2014, 1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noh, Y., Lee, U., Wang, P., Choi, B. S. C., & Gerla, M. (2013). VAPR: Void-aware pressure routing for underwater sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 12(5), 895–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahmed, S., Javaid, N., Khan, F. A., Durrani, M. Y., Ali, A., Shaukat, A., Sandhu, M. M., Khan, Z. A., & Qasim, U. (2015). Co-UWSN: Cooperative energy-efficient protocol for underwater WSNs. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2015, 75.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Javaid, N., Jafri, M. R., Ahmed, S., Jamil, M., Khan, Z. A., Qasim, U., & Al-Saleh, S. S. (2015). Delay-sensitive routing schemes for underwater acoustic sensor networks. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 11(3), 532676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zidi, C., Bouabdallah, F., & Boutaba, R. (2016). Routing design avoiding energy holes in underwater acoustic sensor networks. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 16(14), 2035–2051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pompili, D., & Akyildiz, I. F. (2009). Overview of networking protocols for underwater wireless communications. IEEE Communications Magazine, 47(1), 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liaqat, T., Javaid, N., Ali, S. M., Imran, M., & Alnuem, M. (2015). Depth-based energy-balanced hybrid routing protocol for underwater WSNs. In 2015 International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems (INCOS) (pp. 262–267). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yan, H., Shi, Z. J., & Cui, J.-H. (2008). DBR: Depth-based routing for underwater sensor networks. In NETWORKING 2008 ad hoc and sensor networks, wireless networks, next generation internet (pp. 72–86). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wahid, A., Lee, S., Jeong, H.-J., & Kim, D. (2011). Eedbr: Energy-efficient depth-based routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks. In Advanced computer science and information technology (pp. 223–234). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahmed, S., Javaid, N., Ahmed, A., Ahmed, I., Durrani, M. Y., Ali, A., Haider, S. B., & Ilahi, M. (2016). SPARCO: Stochastic Performance Analysis with Reliability and COoperation for underwater wireless sensor networks. Journal of Sensors, 2016, 17.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 2013 Eighth International Conference on Broadband and Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications (BWCCA) (pp. 93–99). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Javaid, N., Hussain, S., Ahmad, A., Imran, M., Khan, A., & Guizani, M. (2017). Region based cooperative routing in underwater wireless sensor networks. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 92, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ahmad, A., Ahmed, S., Imran, M., Alam, M., Niaz, I. A., & Javaid, N. (2017). On energy efficiency in underwater wireless sensor networks with cooperative routing. Annals of Telecommunications, 72(3–4), 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ali, M. T., Rahim, S. S., Jan, M. A., Ishtiaq, A., Ahmed, S., Ahmad, M., Khan, M., & Ayub Khan, M. (2018). Dist-Coop: distributed cooperative transmission in UWSNs using optimization congestion control and opportunistic routing. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 9(6), 356–368.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Career Dynamics Research CentrePeshawarPakistan
  2. 2.Abasyn UniversityPeshawarPakistan
  3. 3.Preston UniversityPeshawarPakistan
  4. 4.Iqra National UniversityPeshawarPakistan
  5. 5.COMSATS Institute of Information TechnologyIslamabadPakistan
  6. 6.Abdul Wali Khan UniversityMardanPakistan
  7. 7.Higher Education DepartmentGovt. of Khyber PakhtunkhwaKhyber PakhtunkhwaPakistan

Personalised recommendations