| Literature DB >> 28362314 |
Grasielli Barreto1, Daniel H Simão2, Marcelo E Pellenz3, Richard D Souza4, Edgard Jamhour5, Manoel C Penna6, Glauber Brante7, Bruno S Chang8.
Abstract
Underwater acoustic networks (UAN) allow for efficiently exploiting and monitoring the sub-aquatic environment. These networks are characterized by long propagation delays, error-prone channels and half-duplex communication. In this paper, we address the problem of energy-efficient communication through the use of optimized channel coding parameters. We consider a two-layer encoding scheme employing forward error correction (FEC) codes and fountain codes (FC) for UAN scenarios without feedback channels. We model and evaluate the energy consumption of different channel coding schemes for a K-distributed multipath channel. The parameters of the FEC encoding layer are optimized by selecting the optimal error correction capability and the code block size. The results show the best parameter choice as a function of the link distance and received signal-to-noise ratio.Entities:
Keywords: energy efficiency; forward error correction codes; fountain codes; underwater acoustic networks
Year: 2017 PMID: 28362314 PMCID: PMC5421688 DOI: 10.3390/s17040728
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1System model.
Figure 2Fountain encoder structure (adapted from [15]).
Figure 3Fountain decoder structure (adapted from [15]).
BCH codes.
| 4 | 1 | 163 | 12 | 268 | 29 | |||
| 11 | 1 | 155 | 13 | 259 | 30 | |||
| 7 | 2 | 147 | 14 | 250 | 31 | |||
| 5 | 3 | 139 | 15 | 241 | 36 | |||
| 26 | 1 | 131 | 18 | 238 | 37 | |||
| 21 | 2 | 123 | 19 | 229 | 38 | |||
| 16 | 3 | 115 | 21 | 220 | 39 | |||
| 11 | 5 | 107 | 22 | 211 | 41 | |||
| 6 | 7 | 99 | 23 | 202 | 42 | |||
| 57 | 1 | 91 | 25 | 193 | 43 | |||
| 51 | 2 | 87 | 26 | 184 | 45 | |||
| 45 | 3 | 79 | 27 | 175 | 46 | |||
| 39 | 4 | 71 | 29 | 166 | 47 | |||
| 36 | 5 | 63 | 30 | 157 | 51 | |||
| 30 | 6 | 55 | 31 | 148 | 53 | |||
| 24 | 7 | 47 | 42 | 139 | 54 | |||
| 18 | 10 | 45 | 43 | 130 | 55 | |||
| 16 | 11 | 37 | 45 | 121 | 58 | |||
| 10 | 13 | 29 | 47 | 112 | 59 | |||
| 7 | 15 | 21 | 55 | 103 | 61 | |||
| 120 | 1 | 13 | 59 | 94 | 62 | |||
| 113 | 2 | 9 | 63 | 85 | 63 | |||
| 106 | 3 | 502 | 1 | 76 | 85 | |||
| 99 | 4 | 493 | 2 | 67 | 87 | |||
| 92 | 5 | 484 | 3 | 58 | 91 | |||
| 85 | 6 | 475 | 4 | 49 | 93 | |||
| 78 | 7 | 466 | 5 | 40 | 95 | |||
| 71 | 9 | 457 | 6 | 31 | 109 | |||
| 64 | 10 | 448 | 7 | 28 | 111 | |||
| 57 | 11 | 439 | 8 | 19 | 119 | |||
| 50 | 13 | 430 | 9 | 10 | 121 | |||
| 43 | 14 | 421 | 10 | |||||
| 36 | 15 | 412 | 11 | |||||
| 29 | 21 | 403 | 12 | |||||
| 22 | 23 | 394 | 13 | |||||
| 15 | 27 | 385 | 14 | |||||
| 8 | 31 | 376 | 15 | |||||
| 247 | 1 | 367 | 16 | |||||
| 239 | 2 | 358 | 18 | |||||
| 231 | 3 | 349 | 19 | |||||
| 223 | 4 | 340 | 20 | |||||
| 215 | 5 | 331 | 21 | |||||
| 207 | 6 | 322 | 22 | |||||
| 199 | 7 | 313 | 23 | |||||
| 191 | 8 | 304 | 25 | |||||
| 187 | 9 | 295 | 26 | |||||
| 179 | 10 | 286 | 27 | |||||
| 171 | 11 | 277 | 28 |
System parameters.
| Parameter | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Spreading Factor | 1.5 | |
| Shipping Activity | 0.5 | |
| Wind Speed (m/s) | 0 | |
| Channel Bandwidth (Hz) [ | 320 | |
| Bit Rate (bits/s) [ | 160 | |
| Transmit Power | 120–190 | |
| Efficiency of the Power Amplifier (PA) + Transducer [ | 0.25 | |
| Frame Payload (bytes) [ | 128 | |
| Number of Data Packets per Fountain Coding Round [ | 10 | |
| Target Success Delivery Probability [ | {0.999 , 0.8} | |
| 1.5 | ||
Figure 4Energy consumption versus operating SNR.
Figure 5Optimal BCH code rate versus SNR for .
Figure 6Optimal BCH parameters.
Figure 7Energy consumption for different codes at a fixed SNR.
Figure 8Optimal coding rate versus distance.
Figure 9Energy consumption versus operating SNR ( bits).
Figure 10Energy consumption versus operating SNR ( bits).
Figure 11Energy consumption versus distance.