Wireless Sensor Network Protocols in Underwater

Communication

S. Manasa1 Shreya Srivastava2 Yogendra Kumar Upadhyaya3 Ashutosh Tripathi4

Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering

Chandigarh University
Gharaun, Punjab- 140413

Abstract. Ocean expeditions can use underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) for a
variety of purposes, which facilitates with the extraction of previously undiscovered data. But
despite recent developments in wireless sensor networks and their widespread use in contempo-
rary research and economic development, the aquatic environment has largely remained un-
scathed. Therefore, sensors are being placed underwater in order to identify these activities.
These sensors must be compact and use little energy. In this study, many procedures are carried
out and applications are presented. Underwater wireless sensor networks are used in the military
for surveillance, disaster monitoring, and prospecting undersea resources. When these sensors
are in use, data is transmitted in three different ways: acoustically, radio-frequency, and optically.
The four primary forms of architecture are 1D, 2D, 3D, and 4D, and they serve as the foundation
for developing UWSN applications. Several challenges are encountered as these sensors are be-
ing installed. In this work, these difficulties are briefly discussed. Three basic classifications of
routing protocols- Localization-based, Localization-free, and Cooperative routing schemes- are
used to classify several widely used routing protocols. Further study included is the subject of
routing-related concerns for underwater wireless sensor networks.

Keywords: Underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSN), Routing Protocols,

Localization-based, Localization-free, Coorporative Routing

1 Introduction
Given the facts which we are aware of, 71% of the earth is water covered and the rest leaves
space for land. Out of the earth’s water, 96.5% is composed of only oceans. Oceans can be deep
and shallow depending upon their depth. Deep oceans are little-known compared to shallow
oceans since these have high pressure and other underwater phenomena which is intolerable for
human limits to reach [1]. To identify this phenomenon, rapid research has been observed to dis-
cover the unknown facts underwater and UWSN technology is easing the job for scientists. The
other kinds of wireless sensor networks include Terrestrial wireless sensor networks (TWSN),
underground wireless sensor networks, and mobile wireless sensor networks (MWSN). Unlike
UWSNs, terrestrial wireless sensor networks (TWSN) are applied on land. Table.1 lists the key
distinctions between UWSNs and TWSNs.[2]
UWSN typically consists of autonomous underwater nodes that perceive data and are spread
spatially. Various applications for this detected data have their significance. The vital application
lies in finding the clues of any natural hazard possibilities so that precautions can be taken in
advance. Regarding natural disasters, major calamities like floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, and
even oil leaks can be identified underwater. Numerous sea birds and mammals die or get harmed
due to pollution, notably oil leaks which also severely impact the marine life regime. When it
2

comes to military applications where submarine communication underwater is observed and for
patrolling in coastal zones, which is necessary, UWSN has its significance. UWSN also aids in
forecasting the availability of natural resources in the sectors. Fig.1 depicts a quick flowchart for
the applications of
UWSNs.[2]– [5]

Table 1. Difference between TWSN and UWSN

TWSN UWSN
Cost Inexpensive Expensive
Energy Consumption Low High
Power Low High
Bandwidth High Low
Memory Limited Periodic

An ad-hoc network is created by connecting multiple sensor nodes and this is the case for UWSNs.
Fig.1 shows the illustration of a UWSN Network Topography. The sensor nodes provide a wide
array of services, including strong sensing functionalities, information processing, and interface
with other sensor devices. They control data transmission to the sink, which is placed on the sur-
face of the water body. This message is transmitted to the satellite, and it is delivered to the antenna
located on the ground. An antenna, a battery, and a low-bandwidth acoustic transmission are all
included with each sensor node. These nodes fundamentally follow multi-hopping techniques and
have a homogenous character. The multi-hopping refers to the simultaneous transmission of data
to a single device from several nodes. Consequently, UWSNs consume more energy compared to
TWSNs, as shown in Table.1.[2]
Three distinct methods – acoustic, radio frequency, and optical waves are used for transmitting
data. Acoustic waves have a communication range of up to 20 kilometres and are less susceptible
to suspended particles [6]. These waves can travel across both air and water with speeds of
1500m/s and 340m/s respectively. Cost can be substantial since these waves require a medium to
propagate. Acoustic waves are influenced by temperature, pressure, depth, and salinity.[7] Radiof-
requency waves are non-mechanical, in contrast to acoustic waves. They move rather quickly,
especially in water, and are barely impacted by suspended matter. These can communicate up to
10 meters away [8]. Due to the severe signal attenuation caused by high-frequency RF waves that
restrict the transmission frequency range, for the reasons outlined above, RF transmissions are not
favoured for long-distance communication. Optical waves are regarded as the most effective of
the three modalities. These are non-mechanical and move at a pace that is around four to five times
faster compared to acoustic waves [9]. Since optical communication between transmitter and re-
ceiver necessitates a distinct line of sight, it can only be point-to-point and not bidirectional. The
position of the nodes can fluctuate as a result of the wave action, which can enable the transceivers
to become disengaged. The primary downside of optical communications is their sensitivity to
total suspended solids. Salt ions and other particles can scatter light, which alters the orientation
of the photons.[10]
 3

Fig. 1 Applications of UWSNs

1.1 Underwater Wireless Sensor Network Architecture

The common UWSN designs, which serve as the foundation for creating UWSN applications, are
addressed in this chapter.
We describe several different forms of remotely operated underwater devices namely autonomous
underwater vehicles (AUVs) that can augment the possibilities of underwater sensor networks.
Fig.2 demonstrates the UWSN structure.
1.1.1 1D Architecture
Of this kind, sensors are autonomously deployed, connected to a self-contained network, and con-
vey information to a remote site. The undersea sensor floats to the water’s surface intercepting the
information underwater and transmitting it to the distant station. This hierarchy requires a single-
hop data transmission approach and is featured in a star topology. As depicted in Fig.2, a floating
buoy that can detect underwater characteristics can function as a node, or it is placed underwater
for a defined period to sense information before floating to broadcast it to the remote station. A
one-dimensional system is capable of optical, acoustic, and radio frequency communications.[11]
1.1.2 2D Architecture
This involves setting up a cluster, or collection, of sensor nodes underwater. A cluster head, some-
times referred to as an anchor node, makes up each cluster. Data is collected from each member
node and sent to surface buoyant nodes via the anchor node. Since information is carried in two
4

dimensions, it can be delivered in two distinct ways: first, every member node of the cluster con-
tacts its anchor node, which is known as the horizontal communication link; second,

Fig. 2 Underwater Wireless sensor network Architecture[12]

the anchor node contacts the surface-buoyant node which is known as the vertical transmission
link. The three communication modes can be implemented depending on the application and type
of waterbody, however, due to the typically great distance between nodes, acoustic communica-
tion is frequently favoured. The star, mesh, or ring topologies can be used for the clustering of
nodes. [5]

1.1.3 3D Architecture

The sensor nodes in this configuration are arranged in clusters with varyingdensities. Unlike 2D,
3D architecture utilizes three ways that communication between sensors can occur: first, between
clusters of nodes at different locations known as intercluster; second, within clusters known as
intracluster and third, between anchor-buoyant nodes. Also, this makes use of all three lines of
communication possible.[5]

1.1.4 4D Architecture

A mobile underwater wireless sensor network and 3D architecture are both used in 4D architecture.
This entails the use of ROVs, which are intended to deliver the data captured from the anchor node
to the base. To sum it up, ROVs are practically independent, diving robots, vehicles, ships, and
submarines. The choice of transmission method depends on how much data the sensor nodes carry,
 5

for example, if they are carrying big amounts, radio links are preferred, whilst, for limited amounts,
acoustic links are preferred. [13]

2 Challenges regarding UWSNs

Before moving on to investigating underwater sensor networks, it’s indeed essential to first
comprehend terrestrial sensor networks. This elevates the very sensible question of whether we
can directly apply terrestrial sensor network procedures to underwater ecosystems. The response
is no because of some underlying differences between the two that were outlined in Table.1. Alt-
hough numerous studies have been done, the following list of deep challenges can still be consid-
ered for future investigations.

Fig. 3 Challenges faced by UWSNs

2.1 Propagation delay

While acoustic waves propagate five times slower than radio frequency mode of communication,
which move at a pace of 1500 m/s, the pace of acoustic waves fluctuate with salt concentration,
pressure, temperature, and depth. When building the routing protocols, this causes significant so-
phistication and substantial delays.[14]

2.2 Bandwidth

Given the limited frequency used for transmission and the loud surroundings, this is extremely
difficult when the transmission is made using acoustic waves, which employ a few Hz and tens
of kHz. As a result, the bandwidth is narrowed and the performance is maintained at 100 kbps.
[15]
6

2.3 Energy Consumption

Considerable nodes installed in deep oceans with tough underwater circumstances prevent the bat-
tery from being recharged since the UWSNs require more energy than the TWSNs. The deviations
in the node energy consumption compress the constitution lifetime and leave holes in the network.
Researchers have been maintaining their efforts on it and steadily recommend fresh ideas to con-
serve energy and prolong the span of the node even though many regulations and works have been
undertaken. [5]

2.4 Communication Coverage

Sensors communicate data to the surface location through multi-hop pathways to the surface loca-
tion through multi-hop pathways because it is possible that 3D underwater networks will not have
any concept of an underwater sink. To ensure that the network topology is linked, or that there is
always at least one channel from each sensor to the ground station, system components should
coordinate their depths in this manner. [2]

2.5 Attenuation
Electric signal amplitude attenuation can be attributed to a few reasons, including geometrical
spreading, transmission reflection, absorption, and scattering. The use of EM wave attenuation in
short-range sensors produces a satisfactory and efficient sensor model, in contrast to the justifica-
tion given above. [16]

2.6 Cost
Underwater sensor networks are expensive compared to greater power alternatives, and replace-
ment battery recharging methods are also pricy [6]. More complicated than recording data is send-
ing it back to the surface. Due to environmental restrictions, the failure of underwater sensors is
one of the challenges being considered. Consequently, the components or devices deployed are no
longer furnished by typical sensor producers but rather by research-oriented operations, which
have an immediate impact on pricing.[17]

2.7 Sophisticated Techniques

Underwater, it is probable for computations to be faulty, which is arduous. It’s still complex to
provide accurate estimations and dispel the confusion around sunken acoustic sensor devices.[17]

3 Routing Protocols
The major goals of routing protocols are to solve some of the problems mentioned in section 3.
Fig.4 contains a list of protocols. These protocols are typically used for network troubleshooting
and for the stable transmission of information to the endpoint. The fundamental protocols- Local-
ization-based, Localization-free, and Cooperative protocols- are further addressed in this category.
 7

Fig. 4 Routing Protocols in UWSNs

3.1 Localization-based Protocols

Routing protocols that are based on localization involve the consideration of the network before-
hand before sending any data. These protocols typically require information about the location of
each network node in addition to details about the location of the sink. As depicted in Fig.4, a few
protocols used for localization-based include Vector-based forwarding protocol, Hop-by-Hop
Vector-Based Forwarding Protocol, Focused Beam Routing Protocol, and Directional Flooding
Based Protocol.
3.1.1 Vector-Based Forwarding Protocol (VBF)
This is a localization-based routing system, where each sensor node monitors its own position as
well as the coordinates of all shippers, the destination, and the destination itself. Here, often one
sink is regarded by the system, and control messages are not established to gather the data. The
primary benefit of this kind is that by allowing certain forwarders, the amount of traffic on the
network is significantly minimized. The major downside of these networks is their low PDR,
which is mostly caused by the limited node count of the virtual pipes. Consequently, the void zone
cannot be retrieved using this protocol. The size of the virtual pipe might be expanded to prevent
this void.[18]
3.1.2 Hop-By-Hop Vector-Based Forwarding Protocol (HH-VBH)
The control messages in this topology are not anticipated to be periodically traded and should only
have one sink. Compared to the VBH protocol, this network uses more channels for information
transmission. Finding the packet transmission path is a benefit of the HH-VBH protocol as always
8

one node is intended for communication. Moreover, HH-VBH protocols have a stronger PDR than
VBH protocols. The primary disadvantage of these protocols is a high propagation delay.[19]
3.1.3 Focused Beam Routing Protocols
There are numerous nodes and sinks in the network. This kind presupposes that each node con-
tains its own data in addition to the specifics of the target node, which does not demand the in-
formation of the nodes in the middle. The data packets are forwarded using control messages
called Ready-To-Send (RTS) and Clear-To-Send (CTS). This protocol’s benefit is that it trans-
mits the RTS packets at a specific angle in a cone. High energy usage is a significant nega-
tive.[1]

3.1.4 Directional Flooding-Based Routing Protocol

Every sensor node’s location, one-hop neighbors, and sinks are acknowledged by a receiver-based
routing protocol known as DFR. Additionally, it assesses the peer links quality and describes how
to lessen the risk of traveling through the vacuum region by allowing at least one sensor to send
packets. The benefit is that permitting at least one node to contribute to packet forwarding, deals
with the problems involving void. High energy usage is a significant negative.[1]

3.2 Localization-Free Protocols

Approaches that don’t require localization are preferred since they can route data without knowing
the depth at which the nodes are submerged. Getting this knowledge is a challenging endeavor.
The energy used by the node in collecting this information is squandered. A few Localization-free
protocols namely DBR, EEDBR, H2DAB, and D-DAB are involved in solving the prior hurdles
to some extent.
3.2.1 Depth Based Routing (DBR)
As the title suggests, the dimension of the sensor is required rather than its precise placement.
Multiple sinks must be placed on the sea bed to collect data, and routing decisions are taken based
on the sensor nodes drop measurements. It has some downsides, which include inconsistent per-
formance caused by void regions and frequent sensor node failures that are situated near the sink’s
proximity.[20]
3.2.2 Energy Efficient Depth-Based Routing
The improved type of DBR, known as EE-DBR, uses the residual energy (RE) and depth to select
the best forwarding node. The node that contains the best RE value and the lowest depth delivers
the RE value. The node with these requirements is the next hop target. However, it has certain
shortcomings, one of which is that there is no established correct technique for the effective selec-
tion of nodes. Most of the energy is lost due to the transmission path’s noise and high BER.[21]
3.2.3 Hop-By-Hop Dynamic Address-Based Routing(H2-DAB)
In H2-DAB, for all the network nodes, the flexible referencing mechanism is used. In this ap-
proach, a sensor node can have either a NodeID or a HopID address. The Physical address of the
node is indicated by NodeID and the hop count is provided by the HopeID. However, because the
hop count technique is not adequately explained, commonly utilized nodes found close to the sink
is primarily dead, which hinders the efficiency of the network.[22]
 9

3.2.4 Directional -Depth Based Routing Protocol

The distance is considered diagonally for the packet forwarding strategy in this variation of depth-
based routing. Because there is just one sink in the network, this routing protocol does not ex-
change recurring control messages. The data forwarding mechanisms use Time-Of-Arrival (TOA)
ranging techniques, while the algorithm for route algorithm for route directions uses a holding time
function with an angle holding time. One significant flaw is that it doesn’t explain how to recover
from the empty region in detail, which lowers throughput.[23]

3.3 Cooperation Routing

In Cooperative Routing, the parties work together by pooling their resources to achieve a common
objective. This method takes use of the multicast aspect of other sensor nodes. The message is
transmitted between the source and sink by taking the consideration of a multi-hopping approach.
The advantages of this strategy include the potential to achieve high connection dependability,
connectivity, energy efficiency, and overall network capacity, which are the primary challenges
highlighted in section.3. Below are some widely deployed cooperative procedures.[24]

Fig. 5 Working Mechanism in Cooperative routing (CR)

3.3.1 Cooperative Energy Efficient Protocol for UWSN(Co-UWSN)

This method employs the multi-hopping mechanism, allowing sink nodes to communicate inde-
pendently of sensor nodes. Because each sensor node only has one antenna and because they have
limited energy, their transmit power is unsuitable to encompass the entire network. Relay is then
implemented to convey information. The source relay node receives the network requests,
strengthens them, and rebroadcasts them to the targeted to the next target. This phenomenon is
shown in fig.5.[25]
3.3.2 Cooperative Depth-Based Routing protocols (CoDBR)
Cooperative depth-based routing is a development of the Depth-based routing protocol that makes
use of collaboration at the network layer to overcome challenges. To transmit data to the intended
sink node, multi-hop transmission is again put in use. Initially, each node in this protocol manages
the neighbor list and communicates depth data with its neighbors. Additionally, the data transmis-
sion phase and the path setup phase make up this protocol. The benefit of this protocol is that
contrasted to DBR, CoDBR has twice the packet acceptance ratio and 83% more performance in
stable regions. The high energy utilization of this protocol is its main drawback and because data
processing is not done on the relay nodes, overall performance suffers.[26]
10

3.3.3 Cooperative Partner Nodes Selection Criteria (PNS-DRE and PNS-DRE-

SNR)
Partner node selection based on depth and residual energy (PNS_DRE) and partner node selection
based on depth, residual energy, and SNR are both used in this approach (PNS-DRE-SNR). RE,
Depth, and SNR-based routing parameters are considered and used at the network layer, as implied
by the titles. To prevent excess drain, the depth and threshold are set and calculated on regular
basis based on the number of nearby living nodes.
Because there are more links between the sender and the intended destination with PNS-DRE and
PNS-DRE-SNR than there are with a non-cooperative-based routing protocol, the packet ac-
ceptance ratio (PAR) is boosted. This protocol also struggles with common issues like energy
conservation and end-to-end delays, which is detrimental to it.[1]
3.3.4 Energy-Efficient Cooperative Opportunistic Routing Protocol (EECOR)
The EECOR protocol suggested by the authors makes use of an energy-efficient routing protocol
to improve PDR, lengthen lifespan, and decrease end-to-end packet time. The source node tends
to choose the forwarding relay set by utilizing the wireless node’s broadcast nature based on depth
and link quality information. This protocol relies on a single sink node, although packet reception
can be optimized by enhancing the number of sinks. The source nodes which incorporated the
depth and RE acquire a signal broadcast from the sink. The source node selects the advancing relay
set, and fuzzy logic is then used to choose the optimum relay. [27]
3.3.5 Cooperative Energy-Efficient Optimal Relay Selection Protocol (Co-EEORS)
The network definition, network initiation, destination selection, relay nodes, and cooperative
routing are four phases used to characterize this category. Fewer packet drops occur because the
destination receives information from multiple links which makes it advantageous for this
protocol. In addition, the target notifies the source node if a repetition of the data packet is neces-
sary.
This protocol also has problems with end-to-end delays and usual problems like energy effi-
ciency. Additionally, during the elemental state, the PDR tends to be at its highest, but after a
few rounds, node failures cause it to begin to decline.[28]
3.3.6 Channel-Aware Cooperative Routing in UASNs
Utilizing cross-layer functionality of the network and physical layers, a routing relay (RR) for data
delivery with the routing path and a cooperative relay (CR) for single-hop cooperative communi-
cation are adopted. In this case, Time division multiple access (TDMA) which is used, and two-
time slots are set aside for signal reception at the endpoint. The receiver first accepts the packet
straight from the emitter, and in the second time slot, it accepts it via relay node.
This protocol’s main advantage is that it improves packet dependability and the best reception near
the receiver. The author’s assumption that the packet header won’t get harmed during communi-
cation is a significant drawback. Also, an end-to-end delay is exorbitant.[29]

4 Conclusion

This article examined several Underwater wireless sensor network-related issues. It initially fo-
cuses on distinguishing UWSNs and terrestrial wireless sensor networks (TWSNs). Numerous
methods that are carried out and applications are outlined in this study. Data communication by
 11

the sensors is carried out by acoustically, radio-frequency and optical communication. The four
primary types of architecture are 1D, 2D, 3D, and 4D. Sensor nodes are placed in a variety of
designs as the foundation for developing UWSN applications. As these sensors are installed,
several difficulties arise. These challenges are briefly covered in this study. Multiple frequently
used routing protocols are specified using three fundamental groups: Localization-based proto-
cols, Localization-free Protocols, and Cooperative Routing Protocols. Furthermore, it has been
disclosed that there isn’t a criterion for assessing the effectiveness of the routing protocols, thus
defining one is imperative for sophisticated quality management.

References

[1] H. Khan, S. A. Hassan, and H. Jung, “On Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks Rout-
ing Protocols: A Review,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 20, no. 18. Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp. 10371–10386, Sep. 15, 2020. doi:
10.1109/JSEN.2020.2994199.
[2] I. F. Akyildiz, D. Pompili, and T. Melodia, “Underwater acoustic sensor networks: Re-
search challenges,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 257–279, May 2005, doi:
10.1016/j.adhoc.2005.01.004.
[3] H. Yu, N. Yao, T. Wang, G. Li, Z. Gao, and G. Tan, “WDFAD-DBR: Weighting depth
and forwarding area division DBR routing protocol for UASNs,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol.
37, pp. 256–282, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.adhoc.2015.08.023.
[4] M. K. Watfa, S. Selman, and H. Denkilkian, “UW-MAC: An underwater sensor network
MAC protocol,” International Journal of Communication Systems, vol. 23, no. 4, pp.
485–506, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1002/dac.1086.
[5] E. Felemban, F. K. Shaikh, U. M. Qureshi, A. A. Sheikh, and S. bin Qaisar, “Underwater
Sensor Network Applications: A Comprehensive Survey,” International Journal of Dis-
tributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2015. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, 2015. doi:
10.1155/2015/896832.
[6] X. Che, I. Wells, G. Dickers, P. Kear, and X. Gong, “TOPICS IN AD HOC AND
SENSOR NETWORKS Re-Evaluation of RF Electromagnetic Communication in Un-
derwater Sensor Networks,” 2010.
[7] K. M. Awan, P. A. Shah, K. Iqbal, S. Gillani, W. Ahmad, and Y. Nam, “Underwater
Wireless Sensor Networks: A Review of Recent Issues and Challenges,” Wireless Com-
munications and Mobile Computing, vol. 2019. Hindawi Limited, 2019. doi:
10.1155/2019/6470359.
[8] J. Lloret, S. Sendra, M. Ardid, and J. J. P. C. Rodrigues, “Underwater wireless sensor
communications in the 2.4 GHz ISM frequency band,” Sensors, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 4237–
4264, Apr. 2012, doi: 10.3390/s120404237.
[9] C. M. G. Gussen, P. S. R. Diniz, M. L. R. Campos, W. A. Martins, F. M. Costa, and J.
N. Gois, “A Survey of Underwater Wireless Communication Technologies,” Journal of
Communication and Information Systems, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 242–255, 2016, doi:
10.14209/jcis.2016.22.
[10] J. Simpson, “A 1 Mbps Underwater Communications System using LEDs and Photodi-
odes with Signal Processing Capability.”
12

[11] G. A. Hollinger et al., “Underwater data collection using robotic sensor networks,”
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 899–911, Jun.
2012, doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2012.120606.
[12] E. Felemban, F. K. Shaikh, U. M. Qureshi, A. A. Sheikh, and S. Bin Qaisar, “Underwa-
ter Sensor Network Applications: A Comprehensive Survey,” International Journal of
Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2015. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, 2015. doi:
10.1155/2015/896832.
[13] S. Yoon, A. K. Azad, H. Oh, and S. Kim, “AURP: An AUV-aided underwater routing
protocol for underwater acoustic sensor networks,” Sensors, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1827–
1845, Feb. 2012, doi: 10.3390/s120201827.
[14] M. Khalid et al., “A survey of routing issues and associated protocols in underwater
wireless sensor networks,” Journal of Sensors, vol. 2017. Hindawi Limited, 2017. doi:
10.1155/2017/7539751.
[15] N. Li, J. F. Martínez, J. M. M. Chaus, and M. Eckert, “A survey on underwater acoustic
sensor network routing protocols,” Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 16, no. 3, Mar. 2016, doi:
10.3390/s16030414.
[16] G. Tuna and V. C. Gungor, “A survey on deployment techniques, localization algo-
rithms, and research challenges for underwater acoustic sensor networks,” International
Journal of Communication Systems, vol. 30, no. 17, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1002/dac.3350.
[17] R. Bansal, S. Maheshwari, and P. Awwal, “Challenges and issues in implementation of
underwater wireless sensor networks,” in Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering,
Springer Verlag, 2018, pp. 507–514. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-7395-3_57.
[18] P. Xie, J.-H. Cui, and L. Lao, “LNCS 3976 - VBF: Vector-Based Forwarding Protocol
for Underwater Sensor Networks,” 2006.
[19] N. Nicolaou, A. See, P. Xie, J.-H. Cui, and D. Maggiorini, “Improving the Robustness
of Location-Based Routing for Underwater Sensor Networks.”
[20] H. Yan, J. Shi, and J.-H. Cui, “LNCS 4982 - DBR: Depth-Based Routing for Underwater
Sensor Networks,” 2008.
[21] A. Wahid, S. Lee, H.-J. Jeong, and D. Kim, “EEDBR: Energy-Efficient Depth-Based
Routing Protocol for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks,” 2011.
[22] M. Ayaz and A. Abdullah, “Hop-by-hop dynamic addressing based (H2-DAB) routing
protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks,” in 2009 International Conference
on Information and Multimedia Technology, ICIMT 2009, 2009, pp. 436–441. doi:
10.1109/ICIMT.2009.70.
[23] B. Diao, Y. Xu, Z. An, F. Wang, and C. Li, “Improving Both Energy and Time Effi-
ciency of Depth-Based Routing for Underwater Sensor Networks,” Int J Distrib Sens
Netw, vol. 2015, 2015, doi: 10.1155/2015/781932.
[24] S. A. Hassan and M. A. Ingram, “A quasi-stationary markov chain model of a coopera-
tive multi-hop linear network,” IEEE Trans Wirel Commun, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 2306–
2315, Jul. 2011, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2011.041311.101594.
[25] S. Ahmed et al., “Co-UWSN: Cooperative energy-efficient protocol for underwater
WSNs,” Int J Distrib Sens Netw, vol. 2015, 2015, doi: 10.1155/2015/891410.
[26] H. Nasir et al., “CoDBR: Cooperative depth based routing for underwater wireless sen-
sor networks,” in Proceedings - 2014 9th International Conference on Broadband and
Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications, BWCCA 2014, Institute of
 13

Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Jan. 2014, pp. 52–57. doi:
10.1109/BWCCA.2014.45.
[27] M. A. Rahman, Y. Lee, and I. Koo, “EECOR: An Energy-Efficient Cooperative Oppor-
tunistic Routing Protocol for Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks,” IEEE Access, vol.
5, pp. 14119–14132, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2730233.
[28] A. Khan, I. Ali, A. U. Rahman, M. Imran, Fazal-E-Amin, and H. Mahmood, “Co-
EEORS: Cooperative Energy Efficient Optimal Relay Selection Protocol for Underwa-
ter Wireless Sensor Networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 28777–28789, May 2018, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2837108.
[29] H. Tran-Dang and D. S. Kim, “Channel-aware cooperative routing in underwater acous-
tic sensor networks,” Journal of Communications and Networks, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 33–
44, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1109/JCN.2019.000004.