Assessment of UWAC System Performance Using FBMC Technique

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 922)


At the physical layer, Underwater Acoustic Communication (UWAC) channels present many challenges for efficient communications, which feature both long delay spreads and serious Doppler effects. The waves and motions at the surface of the sea are the main causes for these effects. The complexity at the receiver increases along with the symbol rate, thereby increasing the burden of the channel. Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) which is a form of multicarrier modulation has been effectively used for UWAC recently because of its ability to handle long dispersive channels reducing the complexity of the channel equalization. However, Inter Carrier Interference (ICI) is introduced by the Doppler effects that destroy the orthogonality of the subcarriers. To overcome the effects of OFDM, an emerging technique known as Filter Bank Multicarrier Communication system (FBMC) is used in UWAC. The high capacity of the transmission bandwidth in FBMC systems can be accomplished by applying Offset Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (OQAM). Because of cyclic prefix deletion, FBMC/OQAM can arrange higher spectral efficiency when compared to OFDM. This paper worked on both OFDM and FBMC/OQAM by considering the losses and noise effects in UWAC environment and explained their performances with respect to Bit Error Rate (BER).




  1. 1.
    Sharma SK, Sharma U (2017) UWA communication using MIMO OFDM. Int J Eng Manag Res (IJEMR) 7(3):346–452Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pranitha B, Anjaneyulu L (2016) Review of research trends in underwater communications—A technical survey. In: 2016 international conference on communication and signal processing (ICCSP), pp 1443–1447, April 2016Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang L, Xu X, Feng W, Chen Y (2016) Multi-array iterative receiver for underwater acoustic OFDM communications with EXIT chart evaluation. Appl Acoust 114:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stojanovic M (1999) Underwater acoustic communication. In: Wiley encyclopedia of electrical and electronics engineering, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Le Floch B, Alard M, Berrou C (1995) Coded orthogonal frequency division multiplex. Proc IEEE 83:982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chithra K, Sireesha N, Thangavel C, Gowthaman V, Narayanan SS, Sudhakar T, Atmanand MA (2015) Underwater Communication implementation with OFDM. Indian J Geo-Mar Sci 44(2): 259–266, Feb 2015Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tensubam BD, Chanu NL, Singh S (2014) Comparative analysis of FBMC and OFDM multicarrier techniques for wireless communication networks. Int J Comput Appl 100(19)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amini P, Chen RR, Farhang-Boroujeny B (2015) Filterbank multicarrier communications for underwater acoustic channels. IEEE J Oceanic Eng 40(1):115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esmaiel H, Jiang D (2013) Multicarrier communication for underwater acoustic channel. Int J Commun Netw Syst Sci 6:361–376Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khrouf W, Siala M, Abdelkefi F (2018) How much FBMC/OQAM is better than FBMC/QAM? A tentative response using the POPS paradigm. Wirel Commun Mob ComputGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stojanovic M (2008) OFDM for underwater acoustic communications: adaptive synchronization and sparse channel estimation. In: IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, ICASSP 2008, pp 5288–5291, Mar 2008Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan AIR, Gang Q, Mehboob K (2013) Investigation of channel modeling and simulation of OFDM based communication near northern regions of arabian sea. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 5(4):1169–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bhardwaj M, Gangwar A, Soni D (2012) A review on OFDM: concept, scope & its applications. IOSR J Mech Civ Eng (IOSRJMCE) 1(1):07–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kansal P, Shankhwar AK (2017) FBMC vs OFDM waveform contenders for 5G wireless communication system. Wirel Eng Technol 8(04):59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moles-Cases V, Zaidi AA, Chen X, Oechtering TJ, Baldemair R (2017) A comparison of OFDM, QAM-FBMC, and OQAM-FBMC waveforms subject to phase noise. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), pp 1–6. IEEE, May 2017Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tensubam BD, Singh S (2014) A review on FBMC: an efficient multicarrier modulation system. Int J Comput Appl (0975–8887), pp 17273Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    He X, Zhao Z, Zhang H (2012) A pilot-aided channel estimation method for FBMC/OQAM communications system. In: 2012 international symposium on communications and information technologies (ISCIT), pp 175–180. IEEE, Oct 2012Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stojanovic M, Preisig J (2009) Underwater acoustic communication channels: propagation models and statistical characterization. IEEE Commun Mag 47(1):84–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joshy S, Babu A (2010) Capacity of underwater wireless communication channel with different acoustic propagation loss models. Int J Comput Networks Commun (IJCNC) 2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ECENational Institute of Technology WarangalHanamkondaIndia

Personalised recommendations