Abstract
Underwater communication networks (UWCNs) include sensors and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that interact to perform specific applications such as underwater monitoring. Some of the applications like, Mission critical applications require reliability and network efficiency in Underwater Communication Networks, so for coordination and data forwarding between sensor nodes cooperative communication routing protocols are developed that enhances network efficiency. Cooperation is added to the existing non-cooperative routing protocol at network layer that perform better in terms of reliability and throughput. This paper focuses on evaluation of non co operative routing protocols DBR (Depth Based Routing Protocol), EEDBR (Energy Efficient Depth Based Routing Protocol) and cooperative routing protocols Co DBR, Co EEDBR in terms of packet delivery ratio, end to end delay, throughput and energy consumption. NS2 simulator judge the performance of these protocols. Simulation results show that Cooperative Routing Protocols outperforms than Non Cooperative Routing Protocols.
Highlights
Underwater communication networks consist of a variable number of sensors equipped with transducer, buoys, surface sink, stations [3] and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that interact each other for a particular application over given area
Many geographical routing protocols have been proposed for Underwater communication networks (UWCNs), which can be classified into two sections, localization-based and localization-free routing protocols [2].In this paper localization free routing protocols DBR, EEDBR, Co DBR and Co EEDBR based on co operation are considered for further analysis
Analysis and evaluation of DBR, EEDBR, Co DBR and Co EEDBR protocols have been considered with respect to different performance parameters such as packet delivery ratio, throughput end-to-end delay and energy consumption
Summary
Underwater communication has become an important data transmission technology that is widely used in various ocean applications such as oil/gas spill monitoring, off-shore oil industry, pollution monitoring in environmental, disaster prevention, submarine detection and surveying sea floor for detection of objects and search for new resources. Drawbacks of DBR is improved in the EEDBR, where depth from sink as well as residual energy of sensor nodes is used to select the candidate forwarder to achieve load balancing. Co DBR transmits the packet to the destination thru two relay nodes [13] .The relay nodes selects on the basis of minimum depth and they cooperatively deliver the data to the sink. Co DBR consumes three times more transmission energy than DBR because it uses source node and two relay nodes to transmit data, so to achieve reliability energy will be compromised every time it consider the lower depth nodes. To handle problems associated with all these three protocols, a new cooperative routing protocol Co EEDBR [9] is introduced.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
