• Acta Optica Sinica
  • Vol. 41, Issue 11, 1106001 (2021)
Yueyue Tan, Yueheng Li*, Ping Huang, Shanshan Liu, and Meiyan Ju
Author Affiliations
  • School of Computer and Information, Hohai University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 211100, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/AOS202141.1106001 Cite this Article Set citation alerts
    Yueyue Tan, Yueheng Li, Ping Huang, Shanshan Liu, Meiyan Ju. Comparative Analyses of Fitting Functions for Channel Impulse Response in Underwater Wireless Optical Communication Systems[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2021, 41(11): 1106001 Copy Citation Text show less
    Flowchart of Monte Carlo simulation in UWOC system
    Fig. 1. Flowchart of Monte Carlo simulation in UWOC system
    Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in clear ocean water
    Fig. 2. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in clear ocean water
    Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in coastal water
    Fig. 3. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in coastal water
    Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in harbor water
    Fig. 4. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in harbor water
    Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in clear ocean water for L=20 m
    Fig. 5. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in clear ocean water for L=20 m
    Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in clear ocean water for L=50 m
    Fig. 6. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in clear ocean water for L=50 m
    Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in coastal for L=30 m
    Fig. 7. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in coastal for L=30 m
    Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in coastal for L=40 m
    Fig. 8. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in coastal for L=40 m
    Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in harbor for L=12 m
    Fig. 9. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in harbor for L=12 m
    Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in harbor for L=16 m
    Fig. 10. Comparison between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in harbor for L=16 m
    Water typeAbsorptioncoefficient /m-1Scatteringcoefficient /m-1Attenuationcoefficient /m-1
    Clear ocean0.0690.0800.150
    Coastal0.1790.2190.398
    Harbor0.3661.8242.190
    Table 1. Absorption, scattering, and attenuation coefficients in different water types
    ParameterValue
    Beam width /mm3
    Divergence angle (full angle) /(°)10
    Wavelength /nm532
    Number of photons109
    Aperture of detector /cm50
    Survival threshold10-6
    Link range /m10--50
    Field of view(FOV) /(°)20,40,180
    Table 2. Key parameters of CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo
    FunctionClear oceanCoastalHarbor
    Inverse Gaussian2.20900.54190.1498
    Double Gamma2.24440.54530.1007
    Single Gamma0.00970.00530.0453
    CEAPF0.01350.00030.0548
    Double exponential0.00480.00280.0255
    Table 3. RMSE between CIR simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves in different water types
    WatertypeLinkrange /mInverseGaussianDoubleGammaSingleGammaCEAPFDoublexponential
    Clear ocean202.00092.00030.03820.01240.0156
    501.24221.24160.08250.01370.0341
    Coastal300.03630.03430.06170.04950.0551
    400.16160.04220.10000.06500.0842
    Harbor120.18790.05920.07710.06750.0216
    160.47910.14650.11670.11500.0888
    Table 4. RMSE between CIR simulated by Monte Carlo and various function fitting curves for different link ranges
    WatertypeLink range /mInverseGaussianDoubleGammaSingleGammaCEAPFDoubleexponential
    102.20652.23800.00630.01280.0019
    Clear oceanFOV is 20°201.99601.99530.03240.01250.0127
    501.25111.25080.08000.01540.0332
    100.63740.63800.00260.00030.0009
    CoastalFOV is 20°300.06500.07490.08170.05690.1424
    400.06870.05270.10280.06230.0758
    100.10720.09370.04100.06810.0229
    HarborFOV is 20°120.12500.05620.11290.06490.0238
    160.24010.16890.19640.17470.1725
    102.21072.24360.00890.02020.0039
    Clear oceanFOV is 40°201.99991.99930.03630.01120.0164
    501.25441.25370.08820.01800.0333
    100.64020.64090.00480.00020.0022
    CoastalFOV is 40°300.04910.06400.08700.05090.1069
    400.08330.04190.08880.06530.0796
    100.13860.09790.04660.06510.0175
    HarborFOV is 40°120.17300.05720.06770.09090.0178
    160.41420.13290.13190.13540.1154
    Table 5. Comparison of RMSE between CIR curve simulated by Monte Carlo and function fitting curves for different FOVs
    Yueyue Tan, Yueheng Li, Ping Huang, Shanshan Liu, Meiyan Ju. Comparative Analyses of Fitting Functions for Channel Impulse Response in Underwater Wireless Optical Communication Systems[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2021, 41(11): 1106001
    Download Citation