Next Article in Journal
City-Wide Traffic Flow Forecasting Using a Deep Convolutional Neural Network
Next Article in Special Issue
A Low-Cost IEEE 802.15.7 Communication System Based on Organic Photodetection for Device-to-Device Connections
Previous Article in Journal
A Personalized Diagnosis Method to Detect Faults in a Bearing Based on Acceleration Sensors and an FEM Simulation Driving Support Vector Machine
Previous Article in Special Issue
Interference Mitigation for Visible Light Communications in Underground Mines Using Angle Diversity Receivers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Investigation of 3 dB Optical Intensity Spot Radius of Laser Beam under Scattering Underwater Channel

1
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Cognitive Radio and Information Processing, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin 541004, China
2
Guangxi Experiment Center of Information Science, Guilin 541004, China
3
Institute of Future Transport and Cities, School of Computing, Electronics and Mathematics, Coventry University, Coventry CV15FB, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2020, 20(2), 422; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20020422
Submission received: 24 November 2019 / Revised: 7 January 2020 / Accepted: 8 January 2020 / Published: 11 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Free-Space Optical and Visible Light Communications)

Abstract

:
An important step in the design of receiver aperture and optimal spacing of the diversity scheme for an underwater laser communication system is to accurately characterize the two-dimensional (2D) spatial distribution of laser beam intensity. In this paper, the 2D optical intensity distribution and 3 dB optical intensity spot radius (OISR) are investigated due to the dominating optical intensity of laser beam being within the 3 dB OISR. By utilizing the Henyey–Greenstein function to compute the scattering angles of photons, the effects of the scattering underwater optical channel and optical system parameters on 3 dB OISR are examined based on the Monte Carlo simulation method. We have shown for the first time that in the channel with a high density of scattering particles, the divergence angle of the laser source plays a negligible role in 3 dB OISR. This is an interesting phenomenon and important for optical communication as this clearly shows that the geometric loss is no longer important for the design of receiver aperture and optimal spacing of the diversity scheme for the underwater laser communication system in the highly scattering channel.

1. Introduction

There had been significant interest in underwater communication for ocean exploration, environment monitoring, diver safety and other applications. Currently, acoustic, radio frequency (RF) and optical communications are considered for underwater communication. The underwater acoustic communication system suffers from limited bandwidth. Hence it is not suitable for high-speed communication. The RF spectrums suffer from extremely high attenuation in oceanic environments, limiting the communication to a very short distance. The various studies have already proven that the optical spectrum between blue and green wavelengths is one of the most suitable media to transfer information in the underwater channel due to its high bandwidth and low attenuation [1,2,3].
There are a number of studies that characterized the underwater optical channel in terms of channel attenuation, channel impulse response (CIR) and signal distribution in spatial domain using the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method, vector radiative transfer (VRT) theory, beam spread function (BSF), radiative transfer equation (RTE), stochastic model, closed expression model, numerical model, modified Beer–Lambert (BL) law and experimental measurement. Table 1 summarizes the aforementioned methods used for characterizing the underwater optical communication and their contributions.
None of these works, however, characterize the two-dimensional (2D) spatial distribution of the laser beam on the receiving plane. The laser beams in the underwater channel experience significant random scattering. Hence, compared with the natural divergence, laser beams at the receiving plane in the underwater channel have a larger optical spot. However, the real optical receiver’s aperture tends to be significantly smaller than the whole beam spot under the scattering underwater channel. The knowledge of optical intensity distribution on the receiving plane with finite dimensions is important for designing the optical receiver aperture and optimal spacing between receivers for the spatial diversity scheme. Hence, in this paper, the optical intensity distribution of the laser beam on the receiving plane in the scattering underwater medium is studied for the first time.
In order to characterize the underwater optical channel, we defined and calculated 3 dB optical intensity spot radius (OISR) at the receiver’s plane as the dominating optical power of the laser beam be within the 3 dB OISR. The MC simulation method is often used to study the radiance transfer equation of optical waves’ propagation in the scattered media and also applied to trace the trajectory of photons. Compared with the experimental measurements, the MC approach offers flexibility to alter the optical channel and system parameters. More importantly, it can reveal the statistical characteristics of underwater optical channel accurately because an enormous number of photons are counted [9,10,12]. Hence, based on the MC simulation method, the investigation on the effects of underwater channel and optical system parameters (such as the channel type, half-aperture size of receiving plane with finite dimensions, transmission distance and divergence angle) on the 3 dB OISR is very important for the design of receiver aperture and optimal spacing of spatial diversity scheme for an underwater laser communication system. The results show that in a highly scattering channel (such as harbor seawater channel) the optical intensity distribution is no longer a Gaussian and the effects of the divergence angle on 3 dB OISR is negligible i.e., the geometric loss is no longer important for the design of receiver aperture and optimal spacing of the diversity scheme in the highly scattering underwater communication channel.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the principle of the MC simulation method, the computational principle of 3 dB OISR is given in Section 3, simulation results and analysis are presented in Section 4 and followed by conclusions in Section 5.

2. Monte Carlo Simulation Method

To adopt the MC simulation method to trace the propagation trajectory of photons in seawater, six key parameters of photons are considered: (a) Coordinates ( x 0 , y 0 , z 0 ) = ( r 0 c o s ψ 0 , r 0 s i n ψ 0 , 0 ) ; (b) zenith angle ( θ 0 = T Phai ln ( 1 ξ 1 ) / 2 ) ; (c) azimuth angle ( ψ 0 = 2 π ξ 2 ) for photons emission; (d) propagation distance (d); (e) zenith angle ( θ s ) and (f) azimuth angle ( ψ s ) for each scattering event [20]. Here r 0 = w 0 ln ( 1 ξ 3 ) is the distance of emission photons to the geometric center of the laser source, w 0 is the beam waist radius and T Phai is the divergence angle of the laser beam; ξ 1 , ξ 2 and ξ 3 are random number uniform on [0, 1].

2.1. Scattering Phase Function

Unlike the free space atmospheric environments, seawater contains massive phytoplankton, dissolved salts, mineral particles and dissolved organic matter, which induces absorption and scattering effects on the laser beam, particularly for the coastal and harbor underwater optical channel. To model the scattering of the laser beam caused by suspended particles, the volume scattering function (VSF) β ¯ ( θ , λ ) is used to characterize the scattered intensity per unit incident irradiance per unit volume of water. Assume the laser beam to be unpolarized and the seawater to be isotropic, and hence the scattering becomes angular dependent. It is presented as a fraction of scattered out intensity of the laser beam through an angle θ into a solid angle Δ Ω , and the VSF is given as [1,3]:
β ¯ ( θ , λ ) = lim Δ r 0 lim Δ Ω 0 P s ( θ , λ ) P i ( θ , λ ) Δ r Δ Ω
where θ is the scattering angle of photons, P s ( θ , λ ) is the scattered optical power through θ into Δ Ω , P i ( θ , λ ) is the incident optical power, λ is the wavelength of the laser beam and Δ r is the seawater thickness. By integrating the β ¯ ( θ , λ ) over all angles, the scattering coefficient K s ( λ ) is obtained as [1,3]:
K s ( λ ) = 4 π β ¯ ( θ , λ ) d θ = 2 π 0 π β ¯ ( θ , λ ) s i n θ d θ
The scattering phase function (SPF) is used to describe the probability distribution of propagation direction of the scattered photons. Normalizing Equation (1) with K s ( λ ) , the SPF is expressed as [1,3]:
β ( θ , λ ) = β ¯ ( θ , λ ) K s ( λ )
There are various SPF models to represent the scattering characteristics of seawater channels, such as the Fournier–Forand function, the Henyey–Greenstein (HG) function and their modifications. Among the above-mentioned SPF functions, only the HG function can establish analytical expression between the scattering angles and the random numbers [20]. This is in favor of improving the computational accuracy and reducing the computational complexity in simulation analysis. While the HG function fails to provide very accurate results for photon scattering with small and large angles, such deviations are considered acceptable in the theoretical analysis [38]. Hence, in this paper, we adopt the HG function as SPF to compute the scattering angles, which satisfies the following equation:
1 = 0 π β ( θ , λ ) sin θ d θ
where β ( θ , λ ) is the SPF, θ is the scattering angle of photons and λ is the wavelength of the laser beam. In this paper, a fixed wavelength λ of 532 nm is selected. Hence, β ( θ , λ ) can be replaced by β ( θ ) , and the expression of the HG function is given by [39]:
β H G ( θ ) = 1 g 2 4 π ( 1 + g 2 2 g cos θ ) 3 / 2
where g is the asymmetry parameter (equal to the average cosine of the scattering angle over all scattering angles).

2.2. Photon Propagation

2.2.1. Propagation Distance

According to the definition of optical distance L and the Beer Law, the probability density function for the intensity attenuation of the laser beam as a function of L is given by [39,40,41]:
p L ( L ) = exp ( L ) , L > 0
Hence, the probability that a photon is absorbed and scattered between an optical distance 0 to L is given by [39,40,41]:
P L ( L ) = 0 L p L ( l ) d l = ξ 4
where is the probability of photons travel over an optical distance of L, and P L ( L ) = ξ 4 is a random number uniform on [0,1]. Consequently, L = ln ( 1 ξ 4 ) , due to L = K a t t ( λ ) d , K a t t ( λ ) is the attenuation coefficient. Hence, the photons propagation distance for each scattering event can be solved by:
d = ln ( 1 ξ 4 ) / K a t t ( λ )

2.2.2. Photon Weight

As the laser beam propagates over a distance in the seawater channel, a certain percentage of photon energy is absorbed and the rest is scattered. The energy weight of photon after scattering is given by:
w p o s t = μ w p r e
where μ = K s ( λ ) / K a t t ( λ ) is the albedo, w p r e and w p o s t are the pre-scattering and post-scattering energy weight, respectively. Each time the photon is scattered, the energy weight survival rate is μ . In this paper, initial energy weight is assumed to be 1. To improve computation time, w p o s t = 10 10 is set as the photon’s survival threshold, i.e., w p o s t < 10 10 , the propagating photons are annihilated.

2.2.3. Propagation Direction

According to θ 0 and ψ 0 for photon emission, ( μ x 0 , μ y 0 , μ z 0 ) = ( s i n θ 0 c o s ψ 0 , s i n θ 0 s i n ψ 0 , c o s θ 0 ) [40] is the initial direction vector. The scattering zenith angle θ s and azimuth angle ψ s for each scattering event are given by Equation (10), and the θ s is computed by the inverse of HG function given by:
θ s = a r c c o s 1 2 g 1 + g 2 1 g 2 1 + g + 2 g ξ 5 2 ψ s = 2 π ξ 6
where ξ 5 and ξ 6 are random number uniform on [0,1].
Assume the unit direction vector of photons for pre-scattering is ( μ x , μ y , μ z ) , the direction vector of photons for post-scattering ( μ x , μ y , μ z ) is given by [40]:
μ x μ y μ z = μ x μ z / 1 μ z 2 μ y / 1 μ z 2 μ x μ y μ z / 1 μ z 2 μ x / 1 μ z 2 μ y 1 μ z 2 0 μ z s i n θ s c o s ψ s s i n θ s s i n ψ s c o s ψ s
If μ z 1 , then Equation (11) should be replaced by:
μ x μ y μ z = sign ( μ z ) s i n θ s c o s ψ s s i n θ s s i n ψ s c o s ψ s

2.3. Photons Termination

Define Z 0 as the transmission distance, the photon is considered to have arrived at the MC computing plane ( x O y ) if Inequality (13) is satisfied, and the tracing of the photon’s propagation is terminated. However, as illustrated in Figure 1, the vector sum of the projections of the propagation distance of photon on the beam axis for each scattering event L z is not always exactly equal to Z 0 . So, when L z > Z 0 , the arriving coordinate deviations of photons caused by Δ L should be modified by Equations (14) and (15), where ( x M , y M , z M ) denotes the arriving coordinates of photons on the receiving plane ( x O y ), ( x M , y M , z M ) is the MC computing coordinates which on the x O y -plane.
L z = z 0 + i = 1 M μ z i d i Z 0
Δ L = ( L z Z 0 ) / μ z M
x M = x 0 + i = 1 M μ x i d i Δ L μ x M y M = y 0 + i = 1 M μ y i d i Δ L μ y M z M = z 0 + Z 0
Here, M is the total scattering order, ( x 0 , y 0 , z 0 ) is the coordinates of photons emission, ( μ x i , μ y i , μ z i ) is the unit direction vector for the i t h scattering event, d i is the propagation distance of the i t h scattering event, and ( μ x M , μ y M , μ z M ) is the unit direction vector of the photons’ arrival at the receiving plane.

2.4. Photons Reception

The receiving plane is assumed to be a square with its geometric center at the x O y -plane as the origin of the x y z coordinates system, and the laser beam axis as the z axis. The half aperture of the receiving plane is R P D and the receiver’s field of view is Ψ R . Then, the photons are considered received if Equation (16) is satisfied and the energy weight is greater than the survival threshold.
x M R P D y M R P D L z Z 0 a r c c o s ( μ z M ) Ψ R / 2

3. The 3 dB Optical Intensity Spot Radius

The 2D optical intensity distribution of the laser beam on the receiving plane can be divided into N × N components as shown in Figure 2, i.e., the receiving plane with finite dimensions is divided into N × N infinitesimal square areas, where N is a positive integer. The N × N matrix is used to store the intensity information of the laser beam and each element stores the intensity information on each infinitesimal square area. Mark this matrix as Intensity ( N , N ) , and apply I n t e n s i t y ( η , ζ ) to store the intensity distributed on the N O . ( η , ζ ) infinitesimal square area. So, the analysis for optical intensity distribution on the receiving plane can be equivalent to conducting algebraic operations on Intensity ( N , N ) , and the total intensity is presented by Equation (17):
R I n t y = η = 1 N ζ = 1 N I n t e n s i t y ( η , ζ )
10 lg l = N / 2 N 3 d B + 1 N / 2 + N 3 d B p = N / 2 N 3 d B + 1 N / 2 + N 3 d B I n t e n s i t y ( l , p ) R I n t y 3
Solving the minimum integer of N 3 d B ( N 3 d B < N / 2 ) , which makes the Inequality (18) hold, the 3 dB OISR ( r 3 d B ) which is the key parameter of this paper is given by:
r 3 d B = 2 N 3 d B R P D / N

4. Numerical Results and Analysis

Based on the aforementioned MC simulation method and the computational principle, this paper analyzes the characteristics of the 3 dB OISR of the laser beam under various seawater channels. A laser source with a beam waist radius of 5 × 10 3 m, and divergence angle ( T Phai ) of 1, 5 and 10 mrad is considered. It is assumed that the photons transmission velocity in seawater is 0.75 × 2.9979 × 10 8 m/s, the asymmetry parameter g = 0.924 and simulation photons quantity is 5 × 10 7 . Table 2 shows the other important channel parameters used in the simulation.
To study the effects of detection aperture on r 3 d B , eight-channel types are investigated: 44 and 52 m pure seawater (Pur-44, Pur-52), 34 and 42 m clean seawater (Cle-34, Cle-42), 24 and 32 m coastal seawater (Coa-24, Coa-32) and 6 and 8 m harbor seawater (Har-6, Har-8). To further reveal the impacts of transmission distances on r 3 d B , the transmission distances of Z 0 160 m, Z 0 70 m, Z 0 35 m and Z 0 10 m, respectively, for pure, clean, coastal and harbor seawater channel are investigated. The transmission distance is varied for different seawater channels to account for the difference in attenuation per unit distance (attenuation coefficient) (see Table 2).
To describe the trend of r 3 d B as a function of the half-aperture of the receiving plane and transmission distance, based on the MC simulation data of r 3 d B , the K term Gaussian function ( K = 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) shown by Equation (20) is utilized for curve fitting.
r 3 d B F i t t i n g ( X ) = n = 1 K a n e x p X b n c n 2
where X denotes R P D or Z 0 which depends on the MC simulation data types, the value of K is determined by the fitting accuracy, a n , b n and c n are the fitting coefficients of the K term Gaussian functions.

4.1. Pure Seawater Channel

The relations between r 3 d B of the laser beam and R P D are given by Equations (17), (19) and Inequality (18). Figure 3 presents the relations between r 3 d B and R P D for Pur-44 and Pur-52 channels. There is an approximately linear relationship between r 3 d B and R P D initially. Then the r 3 d B saturates and hence it does not increase with the R P D . The saturation effect is clearer for a small T Phai = 1 and 5 mrad. This can be attributed to the fact that the role of the scattering on the laser beam intensity distribution is negligible and the beam spot size is dominantly determined by the natural divergence of the laser source. For the Pur-44 channel and the laser source with T Phai = 1 mrad, the beam area can be completely collected at the receiving plane, and r 3 d B 0.0290 m is the saturation value if R P D 0.065 m. Figure 4 shows the 2D intensity distribution of the laser beam for T Phai = 1, 5 and 10 mrad under Pur-44 and Pur-52 channels. The Gaussian characteristics expected for the laser beam are well maintained. This clearly indicates that the scattering has a negligible effect on the laser beam intensity distribution. The r 3 d B values of the Pur-52 channel are slightly greater than the Pur-44 channel. This is expected as the longer transmission distance leads to greater divergence and hence a larger beam area.
Figure 5 illustrates the impacts of Z 0 on r 3 d B . There is an approximately linear relationship between r 3 d B and Z 0 for a very short transmission distance. Then the r 3 d B diverges from a linear relationship, and ultimately, the r 3 d B saturates and hence it does not increase with Z 0 . The saturation effect is clearer for T-Phai = 10 mrad, this is due to the fact that the larger divergence angle will lead to higher geometric loss, which means the receiver can only collect the center portion of the scattered and direct arrival photons. For the configurations of R P D = 0.25 m and 0.35 m with T Phai = 10 mrad, r 3 d B 0.0242 m and 0.3410 m are the saturation values for Z 0 112 m and 140 m, respectively. For the configurations of R P D = 0.25 m and 0.35 m and T Phai = 1 mrad, the two curves almost overlapped; this is due to the fact that the laser beam radius is less than 0.25 m and this makes the whole laser beam spot able to be covered by the receiver if R P D 0.25 m and Z 0 160 m.

4.2. Clean Seawater Channel

Figure 6 characterizes the relations between r 3 d B and R P D for the Cle-34 and Cle-42 channels. The curves trend is similar to the case of the pure seawater channel. For the Cle-34 and Cle-42 channels with T Phai = 1 mrad, r 3 d B 0.0237 m and 0.0280 m, respectively, are the saturation value if R P D 0.075 m. For the laser source with T Phai = 5 mrad, these values are r 3 d B 0.0960 m and 0.1150 m with R P D 0.175 m and R P D 0.200 m, respectively, for the Cle-34 and Cle-42 channels. The results show that the influences of scattering on the laser beam intensity distribution are still negligible and the receiving plane can collect the whole beam spot. Figure 7 also demonstrates that 2D intensity distribution of the laser beam is Gaussian, and clearly illustrates that the scattering effects on the laser beam are insignificant. Figure 8 characterizes the the impacts of Z 0 on r 3 d B ; the curves trend is similar to Figure 5. As in the case of the pure seawater channel, for the configurations of R P D = 0.25 m and 0.35 m and T Phai = 1 mrad, the two curves of r 3 d B almost overlapped. This is due to the fact that the geometric loss still plays a very important role in r 3 d B .

4.3. Coastal Seawater Channel

Figure 9 depicts the relations between r 3 d B and R P D for the Coa-24 and Coa-32 channels. The curves trend shows a significant deviation from the previous two cases of pure and clean seawater channels. For example, for the case of the Coa-32 channel with T Phai = 1 mrad, r 3 d B diverges from a linear relationship when R P D > 0.165 m. This is because the laser beam is scattered sparsely around the spot center, which leads to the evident increase in the r 3 d B . For the case of T Phai = 5 and 10 mrad, the curves show approximately a linearity trend initially and then saturate slowly. This is due to the consequence of increased density of scattering particles in the coastal seawater channel, resulting in a higher scattering probability of photons and causing the propagation trajectory of photons to deviate from the original direction. This leads to the non-Gaussian intensity distribution on the receiving plane. Figure 10 shows the 2D intensity distribution of the laser beam with a divergence angle of T Phai = 1, 5 and 10 mrad under Coa-24 and Coa-32 channels. The figure clearly shows that Gaussian characteristics expected for the laser beam are destroyed seriously. Hence the relationship between r 3 d B and R P D is no longer similar to the cases of pure and clean seawater channels.
It is clear from Figure 11, that the curves r 3 d B with Z 0 diverges significantly from the linear relationship for the laser beam with T Phai = 1 mrad, and r 3 d B 0.0259 m with Z 0 = 21 m, r 3 d B 0.0647 m with Z 0 = 14 m are the divergence points, respectively, for R P D = 0.25 m and 0.35 m. The curves almost overlap for the laser beam with T Phai = 1 and 5 mrad if Z 0 25 m with R P D = 0.35 m. This is caused by the effects of increased scattering events, which weakens the role of geometric loss in r 3 d B with the increase of Z 0 .

4.4. Harbor Seawater Channel

Figure 12 describes the relations between r 3 d B and R P D for the Har-6 and Har-8 channels. Unlike the previous cases, the r 3 d B does not depend on the divergence angle of the laser sources indicating the dominance of scattering in the 3 dB optical intensity spot. The harbor seawater contains a significantly higher concentration of scattering particles than the coastal seawater channel. Consequently, almost 100% of photons are scattered and hence the optical intensity at the receiving plane is randomly distributed. Figure 13 shows the 2D intensity distribution of the laser beam with the divergence angle T Phai = 1, 5 and 10 mrad under Harbor channel. This shows that the 2D intensity distribution of the laser beam does not depend on the divergence angle and the intensity distribution is distributed randomly instead of Gaussian.
Figure 14 demonstrates the impact of Z 0 on r 3 d B . For the configurations of R P D = 0.25 m and 0.35 m, the difference of r 3 d B is less than 0.0013 m and 0.0047 m, respectively; the saturation values of r 3 d B , respectively, are 0.2498 m and 0.3485 m with Z 0 6 m. Additionally, to further address the 2D distribution of the laser beam in the harbor seawater channel. Figure 15 shows the relations of r 3 d B and T Phai , respectively, for Z 0 = 6 m and 10 m, which distinctly demonstrates that the divergence angle plays a negligible role in r 3 d B .

4.5. Verification for the 3 dB Optical Intensity

The 3 dB OISR proposed in this paper is computed based on Equations (17)–(19). Hence, to verify the validity of the r 3 d B , the attenuation loss (in dB) of total optical intensity that is covered by the r 3 d B versus the total received optical intensity on the receiving plane is calculated. All the calculated attenuation loss values satisfy Inequality (18), and the difference is less than −2.5 dB. This shows that the calculated r 3 d B in this paper can cover the dominating optical intensity of the laser beam.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, the underwater optical channel is characterized based on optical intensity distribution and 3 dB optical intensity spot radius for the first time. The 3 dB optical intensity spot radius is an important parameter for underwater laser communication system design as most of the optical power is concentrated within this radius, and the aperture of the real optical receiver tends to be significantly smaller than the radius of the whole beam spot at the receiving plane. Hence, the 3 dB optical intensity spot radius is calculated for various underwater optical channels. In the investigation, the Henyey–Greenstein function is used to calculate the scattering angles of photons, and the influences of the underwater optical channel and optical system parameters on the 3 dB optical intensity spot radius are studied based on the Monte Carlo simulation method. The study found that there is an approximately linear relationship between r 3 d B and R P D initially for a channel with less density of scattering particles (such as clean water). Then, the r 3 d B saturates and does not increase with the R P D . Furthermore, there is approximately a linear relationship between r 3 d B and Z 0 initially, then the r 3 d B diverges from a linear relationship, and ultimately saturates and does not increase with the Z 0 . Additionally, the verification shows that the calculated r 3 d B in this paper can cover the dominating optical intensity of the laser beam. For a highly scattering channel (such as the harbor channel), the optical intensity distribution is no longer a Gaussian and the effects of the divergence angle on r 3 d B are negligible. Hence, for a highly scattering channel, the design of receiver aperture and optimal spacing of the diversity scheme for the underwater laser communication systems cannot be predicted based the divergence angle and geometric loss.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.L. and W.W.; Methodology, X.L. and W.W.; Software, W.W.; Validation, X.L., S.R. and Y.L.; Formal analysis, X.L.; Investigation, X.L. and W.W.; Resources, X.L. and W.W.; Data curation, X.L. and W.W.; writing—original draft preparation, W.W. and Y.L.; Writing—review and editing, W.W. and S.R.; Visualization, W.W.; Supervision, X.L.; Project administration, X.L. and W.W.; Funding acquisition, X.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61761014), the Foundation of Guangxi Experiment Center of Information Science (No. PT1604), the Innovation Project of Guangxi Graduate Education (No. YCSW2019152) and the GUET Excellent Graduate Thesis Program (No. 17YJPYSS38).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict interest.

References

  1. Kaushal, H.; Kaddoum, G. Underwater optical wireless communication. IEEE Access 2016, 4, 1518–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Willner, A.E.; Zhao, Z.; Ren, Y.; Li, L.; Xie, G.; Song, H.; Liu, C.; Zhang, R.; Bao, C.; Pang, K. Underwater optical communications using orbital angular momentum-based spatial divisionmultiplexing. Opt. Commun. 2018, 19, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zeng, Z.; Fu, S.; Zhang, H.; Dong, Y.; Cheng, J. A survey of underwater wireless optical communication. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2016, 19, 204–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jaruwatanadilok, S. Underwater wireless optical communication channel modeling and performance evaluation using vector radiative transfer theory. IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. 2008, 26, 1620–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cochenour, B.M.; Mullen, L.J.; Laux, A.E. Characterization of the beam-spread function for underwater wireless optical communications links. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 2008, 33, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mullen, L.; Laux, A.; Cochenour, B. Time-dependent underwater optical propagation measurements using modulated light fields. In Proceedings of the SPIE 7317, Ocean Sensing and Monitoring, Orlando, FL, USA, 29 April 2009; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mullen, L.; Laux, A.; Cochenour, B. Propagation of modulated light in water: Implications for imaging and communications systems. Appl. Opt. 2009, 48, 2607–2612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Mullen, L.; Laux, A.; Cochenour, B. Investigation of the effect of scattering agent and scattering albedo on modulated light propagation in water. Appl. Opt. 2011, 50, 1396–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, J.; Ma, Y.; Zhou, Q.; Zhou, B.; Wang, H. Channel capacity study of underwater wireless optical communications links based on Monte Carlo simulation. J. Opt. 2012, 14, 015403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gabriel, C.; Khalighi, M.A.; Bourennane, S.; Léon, P.; Rigaud, V. Monte-Carlo-based channel characterization for underwater optical communication systems. J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 2013, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Cochenour, B.; Mullen, L.; Muth, J. Temporal response of the underwater optical channel for high-bandwidth wireless laser communications. IEEE J. Ocean. Commun. Eng. 2013, 38, 730–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cox, W.; Muth, J. Simulating channel losses in an underwater optical communication system. J. Opt. Soc. Am. Opt. Image Sci. Vis. 2014, 31, 920–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, W.; Zou, D.; Wang, P.; Xu, Z.; Yang, L. Wavelength dependent channel characterization for underwater optical wireless communications. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Signal Processing, Communications and Computing (ICSPCC), Guilin, China, 5–8 August 2014; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  14. Haltrin, V. Chlorophyll-based model of seawater optical properties. Appl. Opt. 1999, 38, 6826–6832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Li, C.; Park, K.H.; Alouini, M.S. On the use of a direct radiative transfer equation solver for path loss calculation in underwater optical wireless channels. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. 2015, 4, 561–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Tang, S.; Dong, Y.; Zhang, X. Impulse response modeling for underwater wireless optical communication links. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2014, 62, 226–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, H.; Dong, Y. Impulse response modeling for general underwater wireless optical MIMO links. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2016, 54, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, H.; Dong, Y. General stochastic channel model and performance evaluation for underwater wireless optical links. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 2016, 15, 1162–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, C.; Yu, H.Y.; Zhu, Y.J. A long distance underwater visible light communication system with single photon avalanche diode. IEEE Photonics J. 2016, 8, 7906311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Huang, A.P.; Tao, L.W. Monte Carlo based channel characteristics for underwater optical wireless communications. IEICE Trans. 2017, E100-B, 612–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dong, F.; Xu, L.; Jiang, D.; Zhang, T. Monte-Carlo-based impulse response modeling for underwater wireless optical communication. Prog. Electromagn. Res. 2017, 54, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Oubei, H.M.; Zedini, E.; ElAfandy, R.T.; Kammoun, A.; Abdallah, M.; Ng, T.K.; Hamdi, M.; Alouini, M.S.; Ooi, B.S. Simple statistical channel model for weak temperature-induced turbulence in underwater wireless optical communication systems. Opt. Lett. 2017, 42, 2455–2458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vali, Z.; Gholami, A.; Ghassemlooy, Z.; Michelson, D.G.; Omoomi, M.; Noori, H. Modeling turbulence in underwater wireless optical communications based on Monte Carlo simulation. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2017, 34, 1187–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Liu, T.; Zhang, H.; Song, J. Monte-Carlo simulation-based characteristics of underwater scattering channel. Opt. Eng. Lett. 2017, 56, 070501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Qadar, R.; Kasi, M.K.; Ayub, S.; Kakar, F.A. Monte Carlo-based channel estimation and performance evaluation for UWOC links under geometric losses. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 2018, 31, e3527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jasman, F.; Zaiton, A.M.; Ahmad, Z.; Rihawi, Z. Scattering regimes for underwater optical wireless communications using Monte Carlo simulation. Int. J. Elect. Comput. Eng. 2018, 8, 2571–2577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sahu, S.K.; Shanmugam, P. A theoretical study on the impact of particle scattering on the channel characteristics of underwater optical communication system. Opt. Commun. 2018, 408, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jamali, M.V.; Mirani, A.; Parsay, A.; Abolhassani, B.; Nabavi, P.; Chizari, A.; Khorramshahi, P.; Abdollahramezani, S.; Salehi, J.A. Statistical studies of fading in underwater wireless optical channels in the presence of air bubble, temperature, and salinity random variations. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2018, 66, 4706–4723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, Y.; Lesson, M.S.; Li, X. Impulse response modeling for underwater optical wireless channel. Appl. Opt. 2018, 57, 4815–4823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Farshad, M.; Murat, U. Visible light communication channel modeling for underwater environments with blocking and shadowing. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 1082–1090. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mohammed, E.; Farshad, M.; Murat, U. Performance characterization of underwater visible light communication. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2019, 67, 543–552. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zedini, E.; Oubei, H.M.; Kammoun, A.; Hamdi, M.; Ooi, B.S.; Alouini, M.S. Unified statistical channel model for turbulence-induced fading in underwater wireless optical communication systems. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2019, 67, 2893–2907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Roumelas, G.D.; Nistazakis, H.E.; Stassinakis, A.N.; Volos, C.K.; Tsigopoulos, A.D. Underwater optical wireless communications with chromatic dispersion and time jitter. Computation 2019, 7, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Saxena, P.; Bhatnagar, M.R. A simplified form of beam spread function in underwater wireless optical communication and its applications. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 105298–105313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Illi, E.; Bouanani, F.E.; Park, K.H.; Ayoub, F.; Alouini, M.S. An improved accurate solver for the time-dependent RTE in underwater optical wireless communications. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 96478–96494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hufnagel, F.; Sit, A.; Grenapin, F.; Bouchard, F.; Heshami, K.; England, D.; Zhang, Y.; Sussman, B.J.; Boyd, R.W.; Leuchs, G.; et al. Characterization of an underwater channel for quantum communications in the Ottawa River. Opt. Express 2019, 27, 26346–26354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Sait, M.; Sun, X.; Alkhazragi, O.; Alfaraj, N.; Kong, M.; Ng, T.K.; Ooi, B.S. The effect of turbulence on NLOS underwater wireless optical communication channels. Chin. Opt. Lett. 2019, 17, 100013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mobley, C.D.; Sundman, L.K.; Boss, E. Phase function effects on oceanic light fields. Appl. Opt. 2002, 41, 1035–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Mobley, C.D. Light and Water: Radiative Transfer in Natural Waters; Academic Press: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  40. Leathers, R.A.; Downes, T.V.; Davis, C.O.; Mobley, C.D. Monte Carlo Radiative Transfer Simulations for Oceanoptics: A Practical Guide; Naval Reserch Laboratory: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  41. Cox, W. Simulation, Modeling, and Design of Underwater Optical Communication Systems; North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Schematic of arriving coordinates of photons.
Figure 1. Schematic of arriving coordinates of photons.
Sensors 20 00422 g001
Figure 2. Schematic of optical intensity distribution and 3 dB OISR.
Figure 2. Schematic of optical intensity distribution and 3 dB OISR.
Sensors 20 00422 g002
Figure 3. The r 3 d B versus R P D for pure seawater laser channel for a link distance of (a) 44 m and (b) 52 m.
Figure 3. The r 3 d B versus R P D for pure seawater laser channel for a link distance of (a) 44 m and (b) 52 m.
Sensors 20 00422 g003
Figure 4. 2D intensity distribution of laser beam for pure seawater channel (a) Pur-44 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (b) Pur-44 with T-Phai = 5 mrad, (c) Pur-44 with T-Phai = 10 mrad, (d) Pur-52 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (e) Pur-52 with T-Phai = 5 mrad and (f) Pur-52 with T-Phai = 10 mrad.
Figure 4. 2D intensity distribution of laser beam for pure seawater channel (a) Pur-44 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (b) Pur-44 with T-Phai = 5 mrad, (c) Pur-44 with T-Phai = 10 mrad, (d) Pur-52 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (e) Pur-52 with T-Phai = 5 mrad and (f) Pur-52 with T-Phai = 10 mrad.
Sensors 20 00422 g004
Figure 5. The r 3 d B versus Z 0 for pure seawater laser channel for a half-aperture of (a) R P D = 0.25m and (b) R P D = 0.35 m.
Figure 5. The r 3 d B versus Z 0 for pure seawater laser channel for a half-aperture of (a) R P D = 0.25m and (b) R P D = 0.35 m.
Sensors 20 00422 g005
Figure 6. The r 3 d B versus R P D for the clean seawater laser channel for a link distance of (a) 34 m and (b) 42 m.
Figure 6. The r 3 d B versus R P D for the clean seawater laser channel for a link distance of (a) 34 m and (b) 42 m.
Sensors 20 00422 g006
Figure 7. The 2D intensity distribution of the laser beam for the clean seawater channel (a) Cle-34 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (b) Cle-34 with T-Phai = 5 mrad, (c) Cle-34 with T-Phai = 10 mrad, (d) Cle-42 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (e) Cle-42 with T-Phai = 5 mrad and (f) Cle-42 with T-Phai = 10 mrad.
Figure 7. The 2D intensity distribution of the laser beam for the clean seawater channel (a) Cle-34 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (b) Cle-34 with T-Phai = 5 mrad, (c) Cle-34 with T-Phai = 10 mrad, (d) Cle-42 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (e) Cle-42 with T-Phai = 5 mrad and (f) Cle-42 with T-Phai = 10 mrad.
Sensors 20 00422 g007
Figure 8. The r 3 d B versus Z 0 for the clean seawater laser channel for a half-aperture of (a) R P D = 0.25 m and (b) R P D = 0.35 m.
Figure 8. The r 3 d B versus Z 0 for the clean seawater laser channel for a half-aperture of (a) R P D = 0.25 m and (b) R P D = 0.35 m.
Sensors 20 00422 g008
Figure 9. The r 3 d B versus R P D for the coastal seawater laser channel for a link distance of (a) 24 m and (b) 32 m.
Figure 9. The r 3 d B versus R P D for the coastal seawater laser channel for a link distance of (a) 24 m and (b) 32 m.
Sensors 20 00422 g009
Figure 10. The 2D intensity distribution of the laser beam for coastal seawater channel (a) Coa-24 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (b) Coa-24 with T-Phai = 5 mrad, (c) Coa-24 with T-Phai = 10 mrad, (d) Coa-32 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (e) Coa-32 with T-Phai = 5 mrad and (f) Coa-32 with T-Phai = 10 mrad.
Figure 10. The 2D intensity distribution of the laser beam for coastal seawater channel (a) Coa-24 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (b) Coa-24 with T-Phai = 5 mrad, (c) Coa-24 with T-Phai = 10 mrad, (d) Coa-32 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (e) Coa-32 with T-Phai = 5 mrad and (f) Coa-32 with T-Phai = 10 mrad.
Sensors 20 00422 g010
Figure 11. The r 3 d B versus Z 0 for coastal seawater laser channel for a half-aperture of (a) R P D = 0.25 m and (b) R P D = 0.35 m.
Figure 11. The r 3 d B versus Z 0 for coastal seawater laser channel for a half-aperture of (a) R P D = 0.25 m and (b) R P D = 0.35 m.
Sensors 20 00422 g011
Figure 12. The r 3 d B versus R P D for harbor seawater laser channel for a link distance of (a) 6 m and (b) 8 m.
Figure 12. The r 3 d B versus R P D for harbor seawater laser channel for a link distance of (a) 6 m and (b) 8 m.
Sensors 20 00422 g012
Figure 13. The 2D intensity distribution of a laser beam for harbor seawater channel (a) Har-6 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (b) Har-6 with T-Phai = 5 mrad, (c) Har-6 with T-Phai = 10 mrad, (d) Har-8 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (e) Har-8 with T-Phai = 5 mrad and (f) Har-8 with T-Phai = 10 mrad.
Figure 13. The 2D intensity distribution of a laser beam for harbor seawater channel (a) Har-6 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (b) Har-6 with T-Phai = 5 mrad, (c) Har-6 with T-Phai = 10 mrad, (d) Har-8 with T-Phai = 1 mrad, (e) Har-8 with T-Phai = 5 mrad and (f) Har-8 with T-Phai = 10 mrad.
Sensors 20 00422 g013
Figure 14. The r 3 d B versus Z 0 for the harbor seawater laser channel for a half-aperture of (a) R P D = 0.25 m and (b) R P D = 0.35 m.
Figure 14. The r 3 d B versus Z 0 for the harbor seawater laser channel for a half-aperture of (a) R P D = 0.25 m and (b) R P D = 0.35 m.
Sensors 20 00422 g014
Figure 15. The r 3 d B versus T-Phai for the harbor seawater laser channel for a link distance of (a) 6 m and (b) 10 m.
Figure 15. The r 3 d B versus T-Phai for the harbor seawater laser channel for a link distance of (a) 6 m and (b) 10 m.
Sensors 20 00422 g015
Table 1. Survey of recent underwater optical channel modeling.
Table 1. Survey of recent underwater optical channel modeling.
Ref. No.MethodsContribution Highlights
[4]VRT theoryPath losses. Received waveform degradation. Link bit error rate.
[5]BSFOptical power distribution on the receiving plane.
[6,7,8]ExperimentsModulation depth, degree of polarization of modulated light.
[9]MCCIR. Channel capacity.
[10]MCPath losses. CIR. Bit error rate. Received photons distribution.
[11]ExperimentsEffects of misalignment, scattering agents on temporal response.
[12]MCPath losses for various channel configurations.
[13]MCWavelength-dependent path losses based on the bio-optical model of seawater given by [14].
[15]RTEPath losses modeled by direct RTE solver.
[16]Closed expressionCIR modeled by double gamma functions.
[17]Closed expressionMIMO CIR modeled by weight gamma function polynomial.
[18]Stochastic modelSpatial and temporal probability characteristics of photons.
[19]Closed expressionPath losses modeled by weighted function of two exponentials.
[20]MCCIR and normalized received optical power.
[21]MCDifferent effects of two scattering angle computational principle on CIR.
[22]ExperimentsStatistical distribution of optical intensity fluctuations caused by temperature-induced oceanic turbulence.
[23]MCProbability density function of oceanic turbulence channel.
Turbulence-induced scintillation index and path losses.
[24]MCEmpirical model of transmission distance-dependent path losses.
[25]MCChannel estimation and evaluation under geometric losses.
[26]MCScattering regimes of photons.
[27]MCOptical receiving power, CIR based on a newly developed scattering phase function which better fit for real seawater.
[28]ExperimentsStatistical model of intensity fluctuations caused by random temperature and salinity variations and air bubbles. Channel coherence time.
[29]Closed expressionNew CIR model that is superior to the weighted double gamma functions.
[30]Ray tracingCIR and path losses for blocking and shadowing channel.
[31]Modified BL lawPath losses.
[32]ExperimentsAir bubble and temperature gradient-induced channel irradiance fluctuations presented by mixture exponential-generalized gamma distribution.
[33]Numerical ModelInfluences of group velocity dispersion and time jitter at the pulse width, probability fade and maximum bit rate.
[34]BSFLower mathematical complexity and simplicity.
[35]RTEImproved accurate solver for time-dependent RTE.
[36]ExperimentsBeam’s wave-front distortion caused by turbulence. Real-time associated Zernike coefficients. Transmission of polarized light and light with OAM.
[37]ExperimentsImpacts of temperature gradient-induced turbulence, population and size of air bubbles on non-line-of-sight channel.
Table 2. Underwater optical channel parameters based on [10].
Table 2. Underwater optical channel parameters based on [10].
ItemsChannel Parameters
PureCleanCoastalHarbor
K a ( λ ) ( m 1 ) 0.0530.0690.0880.295
K s ( λ ) ( m 1 ) 0.0030.0800.2161.875
K a t t ( λ ) ( m 1 ) 0.0560.1500.3052.170

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, W.; Li, X.; Rajbhandari, S.; Li, Y. Investigation of 3 dB Optical Intensity Spot Radius of Laser Beam under Scattering Underwater Channel. Sensors 2020, 20, 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20020422

AMA Style

Wang W, Li X, Rajbhandari S, Li Y. Investigation of 3 dB Optical Intensity Spot Radius of Laser Beam under Scattering Underwater Channel. Sensors. 2020; 20(2):422. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20020422

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Wei, Xiaoji Li, Sujan Rajbhandari, and Yanlong Li. 2020. "Investigation of 3 dB Optical Intensity Spot Radius of Laser Beam under Scattering Underwater Channel" Sensors 20, no. 2: 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20020422

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop