Fig. 1. Flowchart of Monte Carlo simulation in UWOC system
Fig. 2. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in clear ocean water
Fig. 3. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in coastal water
Fig. 4. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in harbor water
Fig. 5. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in clear ocean water for L=20 m
Fig. 6. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in clear ocean water for L=50 m
Fig. 7. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in coastal for L=30 m
Fig. 8. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in coastal for L=40 m
Fig. 9. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in harbor for L=12 m
Fig. 10. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in harbor for L=16 m
Water type | Absorptioncoefficient /m-1 | Scatteringcoefficient /m-1 | Attenuationcoefficient /m-1 |
---|
Clear ocean | 0.069 | 0.080 | 0.150 | Coastal | 0.179 | 0.219 | 0.398 | Harbor | 0.366 | 1.824 | 2.190 |
|
Table 1. Absorption, scattering, and attenuation coefficients in different water types
Parameter | Value |
---|
Beam width /mm | 3 | Divergence angle (full angle) /(°) | 10 | Wavelength /nm | 532 | Number of photons | 109 | Aperture of detector /cm | 50 | Survival threshold | 10-6 | Link range /m | 10--50 | Field of view(FOV) /(°) | 20,40,180 |
|
Table 2. Key parameters of CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo
Function | Clear ocean | Coastal | Harbor |
---|
Inverse Gaussian | 2.2090 | 0.5419 | 0.1498 | Double Gamma | 2.2444 | 0.5453 | 0.1007 | Single Gamma | 0.0097 | 0.0053 | 0.0453 | CEAPF | 0.0135 | 0.0003 | 0.0548 | Double exponential | 0.0048 | 0.0028 | 0.0255 |
|
Table 3. RMSE between CIR simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in different water types
Watertype | Linkrange /m | InverseGaussian | DoubleGamma | SingleGamma | CEAPF | Doublexponential |
---|
Clear ocean | 20 | 2.0009 | 2.0003 | 0.0382 | 0.0124 | 0.0156 | | 50 | 1.2422 | 1.2416 | 0.0825 | 0.0137 | 0.0341 | Coastal | 30 | 0.0363 | 0.0343 | 0.0617 | 0.0495 | 0.0551 | | 40 | 0.1616 | 0.0422 | 0.1000 | 0.0650 | 0.0842 | Harbor | 12 | 0.1879 | 0.0592 | 0.0771 | 0.0675 | 0.0216 | | 16 | 0.4791 | 0.1465 | 0.1167 | 0.1150 | 0.0888 |
|
Table 4. RMSE between CIR simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves for different link ranges
Watertype | Link range /m | InverseGaussian | DoubleGamma | SingleGamma | CEAPF | Doubleexponential |
---|
| 10 | 2.2065 | 2.2380 | 0.0063 | 0.0128 | 0.0019 | Clear oceanFOV is 20° | 20 | 1.9960 | 1.9953 | 0.0324 | 0.0125 | 0.0127 | | 50 | 1.2511 | 1.2508 | 0.0800 | 0.0154 | 0.0332 | | 10 | 0.6374 | 0.6380 | 0.0026 | 0.0003 | 0.0009 | CoastalFOV is 20° | 30 | 0.0650 | 0.0749 | 0.0817 | 0.0569 | 0.1424 | | 40 | 0.0687 | 0.0527 | 0.1028 | 0.0623 | 0.0758 | | 10 | 0.1072 | 0.0937 | 0.0410 | 0.0681 | 0.0229 | HarborFOV is 20° | 12 | 0.1250 | 0.0562 | 0.1129 | 0.0649 | 0.0238 | | 16 | 0.2401 | 0.1689 | 0.1964 | 0.1747 | 0.1725 | | 10 | 2.2107 | 2.2436 | 0.0089 | 0.0202 | 0.0039 | Clear oceanFOV is 40° | 20 | 1.9999 | 1.9993 | 0.0363 | 0.0112 | 0.0164 | | 50 | 1.2544 | 1.2537 | 0.0882 | 0.0180 | 0.0333 | | 10 | 0.6402 | 0.6409 | 0.0048 | 0.0002 | 0.0022 | CoastalFOV is 40° | 30 | 0.0491 | 0.0640 | 0.0870 | 0.0509 | 0.1069 | | 40 | 0.0833 | 0.0419 | 0.0888 | 0.0653 | 0.0796 | | 10 | 0.1386 | 0.0979 | 0.0466 | 0.0651 | 0.0175 | HarborFOV is 40° | 12 | 0.1730 | 0.0572 | 0.0677 | 0.0909 | 0.0178 | | 16 | 0.4142 | 0.1329 | 0.1319 | 0.1354 | 0.1154 |
|
Table 5. Comparison of RMSE between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and function fitting curves for different FOVs