Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Keyword: ABSTRACT
WSN Underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) are becoming popular everyday due to their
UWSN important role in different applications, such as offshore search and underwater
Application monitoring. Underwater wireless sensor networks face unique conditions. Therefore, particular
Design routing protocols are needed to route the packets from a source to a destination. Moreover,
Geographical routing numerous UWSN‟s applications require deploying the security issue; which routing protocols
Security don‟t take in consideration. A survey on UWSN architectural view and the routing protocols
used for UWSNs are given in this paper. The routing protocols studied and compared with
respect to packet delivery ratio, packet delay, energy consumption. Priority and drawbacks of
each routing protocol are listed. In addition, a survey of the security issue for UWSNs is
presented, and the security requirements in order to secure communication medium in this
environment are listed
1 Introduction
The field of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) has captured the imagination of the world with their potential to
enhance human lives. WSN has wide applications in fields like agriculture monitoring, industrial monitoring,
smart housing, automobile industry, and in military applications. Wireless sensor network (WSN) consists of a
large number of small sensors capable of sensing, processing, and transmitting information to each other. These
sensors communicate with other parts of networks using wireless interface.
The design of WSNs depends on the environment, the applications objective, cost, hardware, and system
constraints such as a limited energy, shortage of communication range and bandwidth, and limited processing
and storage in each node. The environment determines the networks factors like size, topology and schemes.
There are five types of WSNs: Terrestrial WSN, Underground WSN, Underwater WSN, Multi-media WSN, and
Mobile WSN [1].
Terrestrial WSNs: Consist of a number of inexpensive wireless sensor nodes deployed in a given area.
Underground WSNs: a number of nodes deployed underground to sense the surrounding conditions.
Besides that, sink node is deployed to gather these sensed data to base station.
Underwater WSNs: Consist of a number of sensor nodes and vehicles deployed underwater used to monitor
underwater conditions.
Multi-media WSNs: Consist of a number sensor nodes equipped with cameras and microphones. Used to
monitor and track events in the form of video, audio, and imaging.
Mobile WSNs: Consist of a collection of sensor nodes that can move on their own. A key difference is
mobile nodes have the ability to reposition and organize itself in the network.
Large portion of ocean research conducted by placing sensors (that measure current speeds, temperature, salinity,
pressure, chemicals, etc.) into the ocean and later physically retrieving them to download and analyze their
collected data. This method does not provide real-time analysis of data, which is critical for event prediction.
The real-time monitoring of underwater introduces the need of underwater wireless sensor networks. Underwater
P age |2
wireless sensor network communication has received increased attention motivated by many scientific, military,
and commercial interests because it can enable a broad range of applications.
The major contribution of this paper is to give an introduction to underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs)
its characteristic, challenges, applications, and architectures. A comparative study of some existing routing
protocols, gives the advantages and limitations of one protocol over the others. Due to resource limitation, it is
quite difficult to provide a strong security to UWSNs. This paper identifies the security requirements for UWSN,
attacks against UWSNs, and particular solutions for these attacks. Furthermore, a security comparison between
the existing routing protocols is given. This comparison clarifies the vulnerability of those routing protocols to
various security attacks. Finally, the paper suggests new research directions as a future scope of study in
UWSNs. In the rest of this paper, introduction to UWSNs its characteristic, challenges, applications, and
architectures introduced in Section 2. Section 3 discusses some existing UWSNs routing protocols and give a
comparison between them. In section 4, the security requirements, security attacks, and attacks defenses are
presented. Section 5 elaborates the different model and simulation tools are used. Localization methods are
outlined in Section 6. The proposed new directions of study are discussed in section 7. Finally, a brief conclusion
is given in Section 8.
Electromagnetic Wave: The communication established at higher bandwidth and frequency. However, high
absorption /attenuation cause limitation that significantly affects the transmitted signal. Big antennas needed
for this type of communication, thus affecting the design complexity and cost.
Optical Wave: Offer high data rate transmission. However, absorption and scattering effect influence the
signal and the accuracy.
Acoustic Wave: The most preferred signal used in many applications, due to its low absorption
characteristic in underwater communication. Although the data transmission is slower as compared to other,
but the low absorption characteristic enables the signal to travel at longer range as less absorption faced.
The surface station has RF signal to communicate with the onshore and surface sinks, as shown in figure 3. The
sensors communicated with the sink using direct links or multi-hop paths.
In the direct link: each sensor directly sends data to the selected sink. This may not be the most energy
efficient.
In multi-hop path: the source sensor relayed the data to intermediate sensors until reaches the sink. This
saves the energy and increases the network capacity, but also increases the difficulty of the routing.
a) Greedy:-
It do not create and maintain paths from source to the destination; as an alternative, a source
node includes the approximate position of the receiver in the data packet and selects the next
hop according the optimization process of the protocol; the closest neighbour to the
destination for example. VBF (Vector Based Forwarding), HH-VBF (Hob by Hop VBF),
VBVA (Vector-Based Void Avoidance), ES-VBF (Energy Saving VBF), and CVBF
(Clustering VBF Protocol) are some of the popular geographic routing protocols for UWSNs.
b) Restricted Directional Flooding:
The sender will broadcast the packet to all single hop neighbours towards the destination. The
node which receives the packet checks whether it is within the set of nodes that should
forward the packet. If yes, it will retransmit the packet. Otherwise the packet will be dropped.
In restricted directional flooding, instead of selecting a single node as the next hop, several
nodes participate in forwarding the packet in order to increase the probability of finding the
shortest path and are robust against the failure of individual nodes and position inaccuracy.
The focused beam routing (FBR) Directional flooding routing (DFR) and sector-based routing
with destination location prediction (SBR-DLP) are the example for that.
c) Hierarchical:
Form a hierarchy in order to scale to a large number of mobile nodes. LCAD is an example for
that.
Location independent query, the sink needs some specific type of data regardless of its location. The sink
issues the INTEREST packet carries invalid position for the target. This query will be flooded to the target
area. Upon receiving such query, each node checks if it has the data, which the sink needs. If so, the node
calculates its position and sends back the data packets needed to the sink. If not, it puts its position in the
FP field and forwards the packet.
P age |6
In figure 8, the node F is the present forwarder. There are three nodes, A, B, and D in its transmission range.
Node A has the minimum desirableness factor. Therefore, A has the lowest delay, it sends the packet first. Node
B discards the packet because it is in the transmission range of node A. Node D is not in the transmission range
of A. Thus, D also forwards the packet.
3.1.2 Advantages of VBF
Reduces network traffic as only the nodes along the forwarding path are concerned in packet forwarding,
hence saving the energy of the network.
The packet delivery ratio increased in dense networks.
3.1.3 Disadvantages of VBF
Sensitivity to the routing pipe‟s radius.
Small data delivery ratio in sparse networks.
Multiple nodes acting as relay nodes in dense networks.
Increase the communication time and energy consumption in dense networks.
In case of a void, VBF cannot find a path to forward the packet.
The node with the lowest desirableness factor will forward the packet first. In this way, a node may hear the
same packet multiple times. The node computes its distances to the different vectors from the packet received to
the sink. If the minimum one of these distances is still higher than the pre-defined minimum distance threshold β,
this node will send the packet; if not, it discards the packet. The bigger β is the more nodes will forward the
packet. Thus, HH-VBF can control forwarding redundancy by adjusting β.
3.2.2 Advantages of HH-VBF:
Less sensitive to the routing pipe radius than VBF.
The packet delivery ratio increased in dense networks.
More paths for data delivery in sparse networks compared to VBF.
3.2.3 Disadvantages of HH-VBF:
More packet overhead compared to VBF due to its hop-by-hop nature.
Large propagation delay due to its hop-by-hop nature.
High energy consumption in dense network.
In case of a void, the forwarder is unable to reach any node other than the previous hop.
If there is no presence of a void, VBVA acts the same as VBF. When there is a void, VBVA uses one of the two
mechanisms that have, vector-shift mechanism or back-pressure mechanism, to overcome the void [14].
3.3.1 Void Detection
A node detects the presence of a void by overhearing the transmission of the packet by its neighboring nodes.
For forwarding vector⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ , and a node N, we define the advance of node N as the projection of the vector ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ on
the forwarding vector⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ . We call a node a void node if all the advances of its neighbors on the forwarding
vector carried in a packet are smaller than its own advance. In figure 10, the advances of nodes B, C and F
denoted as . All the neighbors of node F have smaller advances than F. Thus, node F is a void
node.
In figure 11, the dashed area is a void area. Node S is the sender and node T is the target node. S forwards the
packet along the forwarding vector ⃗⃗⃗⃗ then it keeps listening to the channel for some time. Since the neighbor
node, D and A of S are not within the forwarding pipe, they will not forward this packet. Node S cannot overhear
any transmission of the packet and concludes that it comes across a void. It then broadcasts a vector-shift control
packet asking its neighbors to change the current forwarding vector to ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ and⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ nodes D and A repeat the same
process.
In figure 12, the dashed area is a void area. The node S is the sender and node T is the target. When S forwards
the packet with forwarding vector ⃗⃗⃗⃗ to node C, since node C cannot forward the packet along the vector ⃗⃗⃗⃗ any
more. It will first use vector-shift mechanism to find alternative routes for the data packet. Since node C is an
end node, it cannot overhear the transmission of the packet. Node C then broadcasts a BP packet. Upon receiving
the BP packet, node B first tries to shift the forwarding vector but fails to find routes for the data packet. Then
node B broadcasts BP packet to node A and so on. Finally, a BP packet routed from node A to the source S.
P age |9
Node S then shifts the forwarding vector to ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ and⃗⃗⃗⃗ . The data packet forwarded to the target by the vector-shift
from nodes D and H.
The division based on the values of coordinates, and the cluster width . Choosing the best number of
clusters as:
, .
The second choice is that it exits from all the network volume. To avoid exiting a node from the network
volume, the node positions have to be carefully choosing far from the network space boundaries.
nodes trying to eliminate the problem of having multiple nodes acting as relay nodes. It makes no assumption
about the location of the destination node being fixed and accurately known to the sender node. It takes into
consideration the entire communication circle to locate the candidate relay node. RTS does not need to be
rebroadcasted every time.
3.11 LCAD
A clustering algorithm based on the geographical location of the sensor nodes in 3-D Hierarchical network
architecture called LCAD. In this protocol, the entire network is divided into 3-D grids. The optimal horizontal
transmission range is less than 50m and the vertical transmission range is around 500m; the size of each grid is
set approximately to 30m x 40m x 500m. A grid comprises of a single cluster. The data communication is
composed of three phases: (i) set-up phase, where the cluster head is selected. (ii) Data gathering phase, where
data is sent by the nodes in the cluster to the cluster head. (iii) Transmission phase, where the data gathered by
the cluster heads is transmitted to the base station. The selection of the cluster head is based on the sleep wake
pattern along with residual memory and energy of the contending Ch-nodes.
3.14 Hop- by- Hop Dynamic Address based Routing Protocol (H2H-DAB)
Sensor nodes utilize the dynamic address to get new delivers as indicated by their new positions at distinctive
depth levels. This convention utilizes numerous surface buoys that are utilized to gather information and a few
nodes are secured at bottom and the rest of the nodes are tied down at diverse depths. Nodes closer to the surface
have smaller value of addresses, and these addresses get to be bigger as the nodes travel towards the bottom. In
first stage, it assigns the dynamic addresses to the sensor nodes, and in second stage, information is sent utilizing
these addresses. With the assistance of hello packets, dynamic addresses are assigned to nodes and these
addresses are produced by the surface sinks.
We compare between all the surveyed routing protocols according to our studies and other related works [17].
Factors such as the amount of deployed nodes in the network regulate metrics dealing with matters of data pack
delivery, end-to-end delay and energy consumption. Thus, we compare between these protocols with respect to
P a g e | 13
spares and dense networks. Table 2 summarizes the comparison results for VBF‟s protocol. Table 3 elaborates
the comparison between protocols in point of view of their characteristics. Performance comparison is mentioned
in Table 4. Table 5 monitors the metrics of protocols where Table 6 discusses the application and advantage and
disadvantage of each protocol.
4 Security in UWSNs
UWSNs used in various fields of interest with increasing need for security. This need for security appeared in
case of military applications or applications working with sensitive data. Compared to the research in security for
WSNs, UWSN security research is limited. Achieving security objectives in UWSNs is a challenging task due to
the special constraints of underwater environment. Nodes have limited processing capability, very low storage
capacity, limited bandwidth, and limited energy. Therefore, security services in UWSN should protect the
information over the network and take into account the limited resources of the nodes.
various types of security threats to make the UWSN system unstable [18]. A useful means of classifying security
attacks is in terms of passive attacks and active attacks.
An attacker compromises the sensor by different ways, gains control or access to the sensor node itself.
Attackers can physically breaking into the hardware by modifying its hardware structure, or by taking the data
from the hardware device without any form of hardware structural modification. The compromised node then
behaves in some malicious ways, e.g., to generate a fake message and to attack the network. Complex attacks
from compromised nodes can target the internal protocols used in the network, such as routing protocols.
Vulnerability of routing protocols is usually caused by missing authentication, freshness and integrity check of
the routing information. This fact is denoted in the following attacks:
Basic
parameter
Parameter Localization Routing
Multi- sink Technique onto which Network Control
And of nodes table
architecture used routing topology packets
Protocol required required
decision is
made
ICRP No No Broadcasting Path life- time Dynamic Yes Yes
Base angle or
DFR Yes No Packet flooding Dynamic No Yes
criterion angle
Only depth Depth of
DBR Yes Broadcasting Static No Yes
information neighbor
Only depth Depth threshold
CDBR Yes Broadcasting Static No Yes
information value
Dynamic Dynamic
H2- DAB No Yes Dynamic Yes No
addressing address
Virtual routing Node nearer to
VBF Yes No Dynamic No Yes
pipe the virtual pipe
Distance to
SBR-DLP Yes No Multicasting destination Static No Yes
node
DDD No Yes Broadcasting N/A Static Yes No
Link quality
metric and Shortest path
LASR Yes No Local No Yes
location metric
awareness
Robustness and The sensor network should be robust against various security attacks, and if an
Survivability attack targets, then its impact should be minimized.
4.2.2.7 Tampering
An attacker can damage or modify nodes physically. Due to underwater nodes may be deployed in enemy zone
and the network may consist of hundreds of nodes spread large scales, we cannot ensure the safety of all nodes.
An attacker may compromise nodes to read or modify its internal memory. Traditional physical defenses include
hiding nodes.
surveyed routing protocols designed without the consideration of security issues. A comparison of different
attacks on the surveyed routing protocols of UWSN based on their nature and goals is given in Table 8.
The surveyed protocols are Location-based routing protocols and they based on the broadcast nature of the
acoustic channel which make them vulnerable to security attacks, given that packet information can be overheard
by passive intruders or unauthorized nodes. In other hand, this Location-based technique increases the concerns
of securing the location information, which included in each data packet transmitted. Moreover, since no
governing mechanism exists to verify that a node is in fact at the position it is claiming, malicious attackers can
easily exploit the system. Furthermore, the holding time, used to schedule the forwarding of data packets, allows
malicious attacker to exploit these protocols and implement various routing disruptions on the network. Table 9
summarizes all the surveyed security attacks, including the attack name, a brief description, and possible
solutions.
testing can facilitate to signify whether or not the time and monetary investments are valuable. Simulation is the
most common approach for testing new protocol. A Number of advantages are like lower cost, ease of
implementation, and realism of testing large-scale networks. Table 10 summarizes the simulation programs and
its characteristic. Simulation is not as perfect as real environment. Thus, the designs of various simulators
created are accurate and most useful for different situations/applications. The tool, which is using hardware as
well as firmware to perform the simulation, is called an emulator. Emulation can unite both software and
hardware implementation. Typically emulator has greater scalability, which can emulate several sensor nodes at
the same time [21].
A) NS-2
NS-2 was designed by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and National Science
Foundation. Can be used in both wired and wireless networks. NS-2 is an open source tool. Two languages can
be used to increase the level of learning a curve. Tool Command Language (TcL) is most probably used for
writing simulation code and also gives an absolute learning curve. NS-2 gives some further features of modeling
sensor networks of sensor channel models, power models, scenario generation
Merits:
1. NS-2 supports a significant range of protocols in various layers.
2. Low cost
3. Users can easily edit the on-line documents and develop their own codes.
Demerits:
1. Tool command language is tedious to understand and write
2. NS-2 is more complicated
3. Time consuming for developing a protocol
4. NS-2 does not support GUI.
B) EmStar
EmStar is an Emulator particularly planned for WSN assembled in C and it was developed by university of
California, Los Angeles. EmStar contains both of the simulation and emulation tools, which use a modulator, but
with severely layered architecture. EmStar gives a range of services that are used and joint to provide network
functionality for wireless embedded systems
Merits:
1. Robustness
2. Easy to evaluate faults and error
3. More flexible
4. The master used to decrease bugs
Demerits:
1. Limited scalability
2. Decrease reality of simulation
3. The master can be accessed with only real time simulation
C) GloMoSim
Global mobile Information System Simulator (GLoMoSim) is a scalable simulation for huge wireless and wired
Networks. GLoMoSim can run using a numerous of synchronizing protocols, and was effectively implemented
on equally shared memory and distributed memory computers. GLoMoSim provide fundamental functionality to
stimulate wireless networks.
Merits:
1. Large scalability
2. It supports adhoc networking protocols
3. Good mobility models
Demerits:
1. GloMoSim supports only wireless network
2. Effectively limited to, IP networks
3. No specific routing protocols
4. Difficult to stimulate large sensor networks.
D) Shawn
Shawn is an open source and also a customizable sensor network simulator. Shawn (simulation/programming
language) can be written in Java. It consists of features perseverance and decoupling of the simulation
surrounding. They decouple state variables that allow for an easy implementation of persistence. In Shawn, two
nodes can be easily communicated with exchanging messages that can be identified with communication models.
Merits:
1. Dense Protocol can be replaced by modifying
2. Easy to determine the effect of channel Parameters.
P a g e | 21
Demerits:
1. Simulation issues or lower layer issues are not considered.
2. Limited to generate a postscript file.
E) UWSim
UWSim is primarily designed for Underwater Sensor Network. UWSim is mainly focusing on some specific
handling scenarios like low-bandwidth, low frequency, high transmission and limited memory. It is based on
component-based approaches slightly than a layer/protocol-based approach. Basically UWSim is based on a
novel Routing protocol which is proposed by Developers, distinct traditional simulators which are based on
moreover Proactive or reactive routing protocols (AODV and DSR).
Demerits:
1. Restrict the number of functionalities.
2. It cannot be used for any other sensor network of UWSN.
F) VisualSense
VisualSense is planned to maintain a component-based structure of such models. VisualSense offers an
exact and extensible radio model
Demerits:
1. It will provide a protocol only to the sound.
G) JSim
J-Sim based on the concept of autonomous component architecture (ACA). J-Sim consists of three level
components which are targeted nodes, the sensor node, sink node. JSim gives GUI library. J-Sim also offers a
script interface that allows integration with various script languages such as Perl, Tcl or Python.
Merits:
1. High quality of reusability and interchangeability
2. Independent platform
3. Lots of memory space.
Demerits:
1. Difficult to use
2. Execution time is high
3. Makes user hardly to use
H) OMNeT++
Is an Object-oriented distinct network simulation framework. OMNeT++ is not a simulator, but it
slightly gives a framework and tools to write simulations
Merits:
1. Provide a powerful GUI.
2. Much easier simulator
3. Simulate power consumption problems in WSN
4. A Simulator can support MAC protocol as well as some localized protocol in WSN.
Demerits:
1. Available protocols are not large enough
2. Compatible problem will arise
3. High probability reports bugs
I) Aqua-Sim
Aqua-Sim can efficiently simulate the acoustic signal attenuation and packet collisions within underwater sensor
networks. Aqua-Sim can easily be included with the accessible codes in NS-2. Aqua-Sim is equivalent with the
CMU wireless simulation packages. Aqua-Sim which is not affected by any alters in the wireless package and it
is independent of the wireless package]. Further, any modification to Aqua-Sim also limited to itself and does
not have any collision on other packages in NS-2. Aqua-Sim can be designed with extensible and flexible
options. It consists of three basic classes like Entities, Interfaces and Functions [22].
Merits:
1. Discrete-event driven network simulator
2. 3D networks besides mobile networks are supported.
3. High fidelity simulation for underwater acoustic channels.
4. Easily import new protocols
Demerits:
1. In underwater, acoustic signals are very slow.
J) QualNet
QualNet is a planning, testing and training tool that “mimics” the activities of an actual communication network.
QualNet gives a complete environment for design Protocol, creating and animating network scenarios. QualNet
P a g e | 22
consists of graphical tools that show more numbers of metrics gathered during simulation of network scenario.
QualNet can maintain real-time speed to allow software-in-the-loop. QualNet can execute on a cluster, multi-
core and multi- processor systems.
Merits:
1. High speed
2. It can model, thousands of nodes
3. Scalability
4. Extensibility.
6 Localization
There are many techniques available for localization in Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) but they are not
applicable in UWSN. GPS signals cannot be used underwater for localization. Underwater communication is
based on acoustic waves. These localization methods are divided into two approaches: Range-based schemes and
Range-free schemes [4].
An Anchor Free Localization Algorithm (AFLA) is scheme, where no anchor nodes are deployed. Sensor nodes
are connected to fix anchors by cable at sea bottom to avoid them to move away from monitoring area. It is self-
localization algorithm that makes use of relationship of adjacent nodes for position estimation.
A Hierarchical Localization Approach (LSL) for large-scale 3D network is scheme where for ordinary node
localization, a distributed approach is used that integrated 3D Euclidean distance estimation with recursive
P a g e | 23
location estimation method. There are three types of nodes: surface buoy, anchor node and ordinary node.
Surface buoys get their location through GPS and helps in anchor nodes localization. Anchor nodes in turn are
used to localize ordinary nodes. High localization coverage with low communication overhead can be achieved
by this scheme.
A Time Synchronization Free Localization Scheme (LSLS) for large scale UWSN. Three surface buoys are
deployed that can hear each other. It relies on time difference of arrival measured at a sensor node from three
anchor nodes that can hear each other. Reactive beaconing is used for time synchronization. An iterative
procedure is followed in which localized nodes become reference nodes in next round to maximize coverage.
Effect of variable sound speed on the scheme is evaluated. High node density is required for large area coverage.
A distributed bilateration projection based method for 3D UWSN called Underwater Sensor Positioning (USP).
3D localization problem is transformed to its 2D counterpart by employing depth information of sensor nodes
Bilateration and iterative localization is used to localize all nodes in 3D network with the help of three surface
buoys. A node is localizable in 2D plane if it is localizable in 3D plane. Bilateration can localize more nodes
than can be localized by trilateration.
Underwater Positioning System (UPS) scheme: It is a silent positioning scheme that does not require time
synchronization among nodes. Four reference nodes including one deployed underwater are used. Time
difference of arrival from reference nodes is used for range measurement by sensor nodes. An extended version
of UPS called Wide Coverage Positioning Scheme (WPS). Five reference nodes are used in WPS to avoid the
problem of infeasible region in UPS. Performance of WPS is worsted than UPS but it achieves unique
localization with high probability.
Dive and Rise (DNR): is used which learn their coordinates using GPS when floating on sea surface and then
dive in sea to a certain depth and rise again. During this, message containing their location and time are
broadcasted to the sensor nodes. Sensor nodes passively listen to DNR message beacons and calculate their
location after getting three or more messages. It is a silent positioning scheme and uses TOA for distance
measurement.
Multistage localization using mobile beacon (PL) Here DNR scheme is integrated with iterative localization.
DNR beacons dive only to a small depth rather than to cover whole monitoring area in this scheme. A node
localized by mobile beacons becomes new anchor node and helps to localize other nodes if it lies below
maximum dive depth of mobile beacons. Meandering Current Mobility (MCM) model is used to consider node
mobility.
A Three Dimensional Underwater Localization (3DUL) Localization process is divided into two phases: 1.
ranging and 2. Projection and dynamic trilateration. During ranging, estimated sound speed and two ways
message are used for distance measurement between sensor node and three neighboring anchor nodes. During
2nd phase, three anchor nodes are projected to plane of to be localizing node. If virtual anchor plane is robust,
then trilateration is used to find location.
An Area Localization Scheme (ALS) estimates node‟s location in a certain area rather than exact location. Each
reference node sends acoustic signals at different power level. So area is divided in smaller region based on
different power level of reference nodes. Spherical propagation model is used for acoustic signals. Sensor nodes
record the minimum power level received for each reference node and send this information to a central server.
Central server find the region in which sensor node reside based on that information. Main limitations of this
scheme are: 1.It is centralized. 2. Coverage is determined by communication range of reference nodes and 3. It
does not provide exact position coordinates
A localization scheme Using Directional Beacons (UDB). An AUV with directional antenna moves over a
predefined route and sends directional signals at some angle toward sensor nodes Sensor nodes passively listen
these signals and localize themselves. It is an energy efficient technique because sensor nodes are only receiving
the mobile beacons. Time synchronization among nodes is not required.
UDB is extended to 3D underwater network by Localization with Directional Beacon (LDB). LDB is a
distributed approach which can be applied to both denser and sparse 3D UWSNs. An AUV mounted with
P a g e | 24
directional transceiver moves over 3D deployment area and sends directional beacons toward sensor nodes.
First-heard beacon point and last-heard beacon point are used by sensor nodes to find their coordinates. Work of
UDB is extended to 3D network by deploying nodes at different depth and nodes are anchored to ocean floor to
prevent them from moving. It is silent positioning and energy efficient scheme. Localization error is upper
bounded. The comparison between schemes is mentioned in Table 11.
7 Future Work
Based on current research work in UWSN routing protocols, it is clear that many issues are unsolved. Some of
these issues listed as follows:
The routing must be self-configuring because in case of failure; equipment is deployed far from the experts.
Implementing the existing routing protocols with security mechanisms involvement.
Design routing protocols that handle multi-copy mechanism, when one copy of the packet reached the
destination, then how the intermediate nodes know to discard the other copies of the same packet, for the
best use of the resources.
Most existing void handling techniques in UWSNs employ flooding techniques to find the turn link,
proposing new void handling methods with low overhead.
Design an efficient routing protocol that balance between the nodes energy and the communication
overhead.
Design a new technique which converts different energy types such as moving energy to electrical energy.
In location-based routing protocols, it is necessary to devise efficient underwater location discovery
techniques.
In location-based routing protocols, since each transmitted data packet contain location information, it is
necessary to focus on the node location privacy.
In general, the various research issues facing UWSN researchers are in the following aspects: network topology,
physical layer, MAC layer, Network layer, and Application layer. Reference [5] stated the problems related the
network layer as follows:-
To manage loss of connectivity without provoking immediate transmissions, mechanisms have to be
developed for delay-tolerant applications.
Due to fading and multipath, the quality of acoustic links is highly unpredictable, with respect to
intermittent connectivity of acoustic channels, healthy routing algorithms is required.
Protocols and algorithms are required to be developed to address connection failures, unforeseen mobility
of nodes and battery depletion.
In case of geographical routing protocols development of efficient underwater location discovery
techniques are to be developed.
To understand dynamics of data transmission at the network layers, credible simulation models and tools
are required to be developed for accurate modelling.
The delay variance of acoustic signals to propagate from one node to another heavily depends on the
distance between two nodes. The delay variation in horizontal acoustic links is generally larger than in
vertical links which is due to multipath.
8 Conclusions
Interest in UWSNs is increasing, and related research studies are in progress. However, underwater environment
is a special environment that has many restrictions. Considering this restriction, many challenges face the design
of the routing protocols of UWSNs. The routing protocols in UWSNs have the common objective of trying to
P a g e | 25
increase the delivery ratio while decreasing the resource consumption and End-to-End delay. However, current
routing protocols have not designed to defend against security attacks that can block or degrade network
communication and performance.
In this paper, we introduced an overview of UWSNs its characteristic, challenge, communication system nature,
network architecture, localization and applications. We discuss some of UWSNs routing protocols and study
their advantages and disadvantages. The comparison is necessary in order to point out which routing protocol is
best according to the desirable use. We also explored security issues and attacks of UWSNs. We present
comparison between the surveyed routing protocols according to its vulnerability against various security
attacks. Security issues in UWSNs remain open and we expect to see more research activities on these topics in
the future.
References
[1] Dina M. Ibrahim, Mohmoud M. Fahmy, Tarek E. ElTobely, and ElSayed A. Sallam, “Modelling and Performance
Enhancement of Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks by Petri Nets”, Thesis submitted to the Engineering Faculty,
Tanta University, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering, 2014.
[2] Jian S., Jin W., Jianwei Z. and Shunfeng W., “A Comparative Study on Routing Protocols in Underwater Sensor
Networks”, Advanced Technologies, Embedded and Multimedia for Human-centric Computing, Lecture Notes in
Electrical Engineering 260, Springer Science & Business Media Dordrecht, 2014.
[3] M.Kiranmayi1and Dr. Kathirvel Ayyaswamy; „Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks: Applications, Challenges and
Design Issues of the Network Layer - A Review‟, International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research
(IJETER), Vol. 3 No.1, January 27, 2015, pp. 05 – 11.
[4] Mukesh Beniwal and Rishipal Singh, „Localization Techniques and Their Challenges in Underwater Wireless Sensor
Networks‟, International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Vol. 5 (3) , 2014, 4706-4710.
[5] Bhanu K., “Muti-Metric Adaptive Routing Algorithm for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks”, a thesis submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of master of science, Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi
Corpus Christi, Texas, 2011.
[6] Ahmed M., “Iraqi Rivers Pollution Monitoring System Based on Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks”, a thesis
submitted to the Computer Engineering Department University of Technology in Partial Fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in computer engineering, 2013.
[7] Salvador Climent, Juan Vicente Capella, Nirvana Meratnia and Juan José Serrano, „Underwater Sensor Networks: A
New Energy Efficient and Robust Architecture‟, Sensors 2012, 12, pp.704-731.
[8] MohsinMurad, Adil A. Sheikh, Muhammad AsifManzoor, EmadFelemban, and SaadQaisar, „A Survey on Current
Underwater Acoustic Sensor Network Applications‟, International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol.
7, No. 1, February 2015, pp.51-56.
[9] Parul Garg and Sandeep Waraich, „ Parametric Comparative Analysis of Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks
Routing Protocols‟, International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol.116 No. 11, April 2015, pp. 29-35.
[10] Sihem Souiki, Maghnia Feham, Mohamed Feham and Nabila Labraoui, „Geographic Routing Protocols for Underwater
Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey‟International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN) Vol. 6, No. 1,
February 2014, pp.69-87.
[11] Kifayat Ullah Jan and Zahoor Jan, „Survey on Routing Protocols for Under Water Sensor Networks‟, Journal of
Computer Engineering (IOSR-JCE), Vol. 16, Issue 1, Ver. VI, Feb. 2014, pp. 44-46.
[12] Xie P., Cui J., and Lao L, “Vector-based Forwarding Protocol for Underwater Sensor Networks”, International
conference on networking (IFIP networking), 2006.
[13] Nicolaou N., See A., Xie P., Cui J., and Maggiorini D., “Improving the Robustness of Location-based Routing for
Underwater Sensor Networks”, Proc. Of the OCEANS‟07, Europe, IEEE, 2007.
[14] Xie P., Zhou Z., Peng Z., Cui J.-H., and Shi Z , “Void Avoidance in Three-dimensional Mobile Underwater Sensor
Networks”, Proc. of the 4th international conference of wireless algorithms, system, and applications (WASA ), USA,
2009.
[15] Bo W., Yong-mei L, and Zhigang J, “ES-VBF: An Energy Saving Routing Protoco”, In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Information Technology and Software Engineering, 2012.
[16] Dina M. Ibrahim, Mohmoud M. Fahmy, Tarek E. ElTobely, and ElSayed A. Sallam, “Enhancing the Vector-Based
Forwarding Routing Protocol for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks: A Clustering Approach”, The Tenth
International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications (ICWMC), 2014.
[17] Yonca B., Nirvana M. and Aylin K., “A Comparative View of Routing Protocols for Underwater Wireless Sensor
Networks”, Proc. of the OCEANS‟11, Spain, IEEE, 2011.
[18] Mari C.,” Securing Underwater Wireless Communication Networks”, IEEE Wireless Communications, 2011.
[19] Muhammad Ayaz, Imran Baig,Azween Abdullah and Ibrahima Faye, „A survey on routing techniques in underwater
wireless sensor networks‟, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 2011, pp. 1-20.
[20] Thumpi.R, Manjula R.B and SunilkumarS.Manvi, „A Survey on Routing Protocols for Underwater Acoustic Sensor
Networks‟, International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), Vol.2, Issue.2, May 2013, pp. 170-
175.
[21] V.P. Dhviya, R. Arthi, “Analysis of Simulation Tools for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks”, International Journal
of Computer Science & Engineering Technology (IJCSET), 2014.
[22] P. Xie, Z. Zhou , Z. Peng , H. Yan , T. Hu , J. Cui , Z. Shi , Y. Fei& S. Zhou “Aqua-Sim: An NS-2 Based Simulator for
Underwater Sensor Networks”, in proc. Of MITS/IEEE oceans conference, 2009.
[23] K. Jensen, L. Kristensen and L. Wells, “Coloured Petri Nets and CPN Tools for Modelling and Validation of
Concurrent Systems”, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), Springer-Verlage,
2007.