Impulse Response Modeling for Underwater Wireless Laser Transmission

Tiansong Li; Rongkai Yang; Xiang Gao; Yanhu Huang

doi:10.3788/AOS201939.1101001

Journals >Acta Optica Sinica >Volume 39 >Issue 11 >Page 1101001 > Article

Acta Optica Sinica
Vol. 39, Issue 11, 1101001 (2019)

Impulse Response Modeling for Underwater Wireless Laser Transmission

Tiansong Li^1、2、**, Rongkai Yang^1、2、*, Xiang Gao¹, and Yanhu Huang²

Author Affiliations

¹School of Information and Communication, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin, Guangxi 541004, China

²Guangxi Key Laboratory of Precision Navigation Technology and Application, Guilin, Guangxi 541004, China

show less

DOI: 10.3788/AOS201939.1101001 Cite this Article Set citation alerts

Tiansong Li, Rongkai Yang, Xiang Gao, Yanhu Huang. Impulse Response Modeling for Underwater Wireless Laser Transmission[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2019, 39(11): 1101001 Copy Citation Text

show less

Comparison of different scattering phase functions with Petzold average particle phase function. (a) Semi-logarithmic coordinates; (b) double logarithmic coordinates

Fig. 1. Comparison of different scattering phase functions with Petzold average particle phase function. (a) Semi-logarithmic coordinates; (b) double logarithmic coordinates

Download full size

Fig. 2. Flow chart of Monte Carlo simulation

Download full size

Fig. 3. Modeling of channel impulse response in different sea areas. (a) Different link distances in harbor; (b) different receiving apertures in coast; (c) different link distances in coast; (d) different AFOVs in harbor

Download full size

Fig. 4. Modeling of channel impulse response at different initial pulse widths in different sea areas. (a) Coastal water; (b) harbor water

Download full size

Phase function	Δβ
Phase function	(0.1000°,5.000°)	(0.1000°,90.00°)	(90.00°,180.0°)	(0.1000°,180.0°)
HG	18.55	26.62	39.88	36.16
FFT	0.56	10.36	17.82	29.22

Table 1. Comparison of Δβ between each scattering function and Petzold particle phase function

Water type	${μ_{a}}_{}$ /m^-1	${μ_{b}}_{}$ /m^-1	${μ_{c}}_{}$ /m^-1	ω₀	g
Ⅱ Coastal	0.179	0.219	0.40	0.55	0.94
Ⅲ Turbid Harbor	0.366	1.824	2.19	0.83	0.92

Table 2. Attenuation parameters, scattering albedo, and asymmetry factor in different water types

Water type	AFOV /(°)	d /inch	L /m	C₁	C₂	C₃	C₄	α	β
Harbor	90	12	12	1.1560	0.3466	9.840×10^-10	0.5751	0.7882	0.8901
Harbor	90	12	16	0.5510	0.1686	2.131×10^-3	0.8361	0.8986	0.7957
Coastal	90	12	30	0.1669	1.9360	2.569	0.9751	0.6361	0.8901
Coastal	90	12	50	0.5031	0.2139	0.5812	0.8361	0.7368	1.9430
Harbor	30	12	10	0.4160	0.8866	2.100×10^-4	0.3831	0.6812	0.9001
Harbor	60	12	10	1.3610	0.6986	3.131×10^-3	0.7361	0.6986	0.8957
Harbor	90	12	10	1.6760	0.5516	9.110×10^-10	0.6751	0.7382	0.9101
Coastal	90	8	45	0.2032	0.3872	3.610×10^-3	0.4156	0.7145	2.7960
Coastal	90	12	45	0.3672	0.2686	3.131×10^-3	0.8361	0.8126	2.8950
Coastal	90	16	45	0.8320	0.2816	1.260×10^-3	1.6751	0.9382	1.9900

Table 3. Parameters of WDGF in different UWOC channels

Water type	AFOV /(°)	d /inch	L /m	C₁	C₂	C₃	C₄	χ
Harbor	90	12	12	1.0870	0.0227	0.02326	0.05623	2.51100
Harbor	90	12	16	0.4936	5.5870	0.05923	0.03623	0.04124
Coastal	90	12	30	1.5870	0.8027	0.00326	0.15620	0.91100
Coastal	90	12	50	0.3836	2.2090	0.05923	1.53600	3.91200
Harbor	30	12	10	0.1972	0.5828	0.03263	0.65160	1.35800
Harbor	60	12	10	0.6036	0.6095	1.56000	1.03700	0.25160
Harbor	90	12	10	0.9936	0.8152	0.42890	0.05676	2.03900
Coastal	90	8	45	0.0759	0.7832	0.02682	2.82900	2.86500
Coastal	90	12	45	0.1352	0.7011	1.67200	3.91600	2.91500
Coastal	90	16	45	0.6279	1.1660	0.21260	0.07363	3.81600

Table 4. Parameters of MGF in different UWOC channels

Water type	AFOV /(°)	d /inch	L /m	RMSE of WDGF /%	RMSE of MGF /%
Harbor	90	12	12	0.64	0.25
Harbor	90	12	16	1.22	0.60
Coastal	90	12	30	0.98	0.11
Coastal	90	12	50	1.99	1.07
Harbor	30	12	10	0.42	0.16
Harbor	60	12	10	1.19	0.33
Harbor	90	12	10	1.98	0.59
Coastal	90	8	45	1.17	1.01
Coastal	90	12	45	1.69	1.50
Coastal	90	16	45	2.19	1.77

Table 5. Comparison of RMSE values of MGF and WDGF in different UWOC channels

Water type	AFOV /(°)	d /inch	L /m	ξ /ps	C₁	C₂	C₃	C₄	χ	RMSE /%
Harbor	90	12	10	10	0.1836	3.2110	0.05923	2.963	2.9120	0.3900
Harbor	90	12	10	5000	0.9136	0.6096	0.06312	1.136	1.4130	1.2000
Coastal	90	12	36	10	0.3816	2.0630	1.98000	2.162	0.1226	0.3800
Coastal	90	12	36	5000	1.3030	0.5916	0.05321	1.157	0.5026	1.1300

Table 6. MGF parameters and RMSE values in UWOC channels with different initial pulse widths

Tiansong Li, Rongkai Yang, Xiang Gao, Yanhu Huang. Impulse Response Modeling for Underwater Wireless Laser Transmission[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2019, 39(11): 1101001

Download Citation

Set citation alerts for the article

Tools

Set citation alerts for the article

Save the article for my favorites

Paper Information