Ad Hoc Networks 89 (2019) 161–169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ad Hoc Networks
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/adhoc

Time reversal communication using vertical particle velocity and

pressure signals in shallow water
Sunhyo Kim a, Hyeonsu Kim b, Seom-kyu Jung a, Jee Woong Choi b,∗
a
Maritime Security Research Center, Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, Busan, 49111, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Marine Science and Convergence Engineering, Hanyang University-ERICA, Ansan, Gyeonggido 15588, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Acoustic communication in shallow water is characterized by multipath channels, which cause significant
Received 25 April 2018 delay spreading, leading to inter-symbol interference. This inter-symbol interference necessarily causes
Revised 2 January 2019
a significant degradation in communication performance. Although a time reversal technique has been
Accepted 19 March 2019
reported to produce satisfactory performance in multipath dominant environments, this technique re-
Available online 20 March 2019
quires a large receiver array covering the water column to achieve reliable communication performance.
Keywords: In this paper, a time reversal single-input multiple-output system using the pressure signal and the ver-
Underwater acoustic communication tical component of the particle velocity is presented. The vertical component of the particle velocity was
Particle velocity estimated using the finite difference in gradient between pressures measured by two vertically adjacent
Time reversal technique receivers. The experiment was conducted in shallow water off the south coast of Korea, where the water
depth is 59 m and the bottom consists of silty clay. The results showed that the time reversal communi-
cation system based on vector quantities performed better than systems where only the pressure signals
were used.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

1. Introduction of spatially separated receivers was applied as an alternative to

When sound propagates through shallow-water waveguides,
which are characterized by large temporal and spatial variations,
it undergoes multiple interactions with the sea surface and bot-
tom interfaces. This produces time-varying delays and frequency
spreads. Such a time-varying multipath channel makes underwater
communication challenging [1]. The time-delay spread often cov-
ers hundreds of information-carrying symbols and thereby causes
severe inter-symbol interference (ISI). The presence of ISI signif-
icantly degrades the communication performance [2–5]. In addi-
tion, sea-surface movement produces time-varying channels ex-
hibiting relatively short coherence time and a large Doppler spread
[6–8].
Single-channel equalizer was mainly used in coherent acoustic
communications to compensate for the ISI until the 1990s [9,10].
After that, a single-channel receiver was extended to a multi-
channel receiver system to improve the communication perfor-
mance. However, there was a limitation that multi-channel equal-
izers required the high computational complexity [11–12]. In the
early 20 0 0s, the passive time reversal technique using an array
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: choijw@hanyang.ac.kr (J.W. Choi).
the equalization process in underwater acoustic communications
[13–15]. The time reversal technique has a relatively simple re-
ceiver structure and reduces the ISI effectively in a multipath en-
vironment [16–18]. The time reversal was then combined with the
phase tracking process to compensate for the doppler effect due to
the source and receiver movements [13] and equalization process
to remove the residual ISI remaining after time reversal processing
[14,15]. Although the time reversal technique is robust to multipath
fading environment, it still requires a relatively large-scale receiver
array because the spatial diversity improves the bit error rate (BER)
performance of the time reversal communication system.
In recent years, the physics of sound propagation in the ocean
has been investigated in terms of acoustic vector quantities such
as the acoustic particle velocity, acceleration and displacement
[19,20]. In general, the acoustic vector sensor performs better than
hydrophone because it measures acoustic particle velocity as well
as pressure at a single point. Accordingly, the acoustic vector sen-
sor has been applied in various areas such as sound source track-
ing, acoustic noise reduction and target detection [21]. However,
few studies have used vector quantities in underwater communi-
cation [22].
In this paper, a time reversal technique using particle ve-
locity and pressure signal is applied to underwater acoustic

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2019.03.008
1570-8705/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
162 S. Kim, H. Kim and S.-k. Jung et al. / Ad Hoc Networks 89 (2019) 161–169
communication. The x, y, and z-components of the particle veloc-
ity and the acoustic pressure signal are used as multiple outputs
of the receiver. The efficiency of the proposed method is verified
using experimental communication data. However, only the verti-
cal component of the particle velocity was measured during the
underwater communication experiment, owing to the limitation of
the equipment available in our system, and it was used to demod-
ulate the communication data with the acoustic pressure signal.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a descrip-
tion of the time reversal process using the vertical component of
particle velocity and pressure signal. Section 3 describes the un-
derwater acoustic communication experiment conducted in shal-
low water. Section 4 presents results concerning the characteris-
tics of the communication channel and the communication perfor-
mance obtained using the method suggested in this paper. Finally,
a summary and discussion are given in Section 5.
2. Time reversal communication based on particle velocities
2.1. Particle velocity
The particle velocity v(t) can be calculated by integrating Eu-
ler’s equation with respect to time. If two pressure receivers are
assumed to be close together, v(t) is the time integral of the pres-
sure gradient, which can be approximated using finite difference
approximation [23]. The particle velocity is:

1 t
p2 ( τ ) − p1 ( τ )
v(t ) = dτ .
ρ0 0 d
where p1 and p2 are the pressure signals at two receivers placed
close together, d is the receiver separation distance, τ is the time
variable, and ρ 0 is the water density. The particle velocity in a par-
ticular direction is equivalent to the acoustic pressure divided by
the acoustic impedance. The acoustic impedance is ρ 0 c, where c is
a sound speed. As the particle velocity is a vector quantity, it has
three components in the x, y, and z directions. If the three velocity
components and the acoustic pressure can be measured simulta-
neously at a given point using a vector sensor, these signals can be
used as a single-input multiple-output system (SIMO) for under-
water acoustic communication. This procedure is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Block diagram of the SIMO communication system using the three particle
velocity components and the pressure signal. h(t) represents a channel impulse re-
sponse.
Fig. 2. Block diagram of the passive time reversal receiver. hˆ i (t ) is a time-reversed form of channel impulse response estimated at the ith receiver.
2.2. Time reversal
The time reversal technique improves the signal to noise ratio
(SNR) and reduces the ISI by focusing the sound at a single posi-
tion using the channel impulse response (CIR). The CIR is estimated
using a probe signal without any information regarding the ocean
environmental parameters. The probe signal and the subsequent
communication stream are transmitted by a source and received
at multiple receivers after propagating through a multipath chan-
nel. The received probe signal at each receiver element is matched
filtered with a replica of the emitted probe signal to estimate
the CIR, hˆ (t ) for each receiver position. Then, the time-reversed
CIRs are convolved with the received communication streams and
summed to obtain the focused communication stream, y (t).
N  

y (t ) = pi (t ) ∗ hˆ i (−t ) . (2)
i
where pi (t) is the communication sequence received at the i-th re-
ceiver. N is the number of receivers. This procedure is shown in
Fig. 2. This process is also known as “passive phase conjugation”
[13,24]. The performance of the time reversal process can be evalu-
ated using a q (t)-function, which is calculated by matched filtering
hˆ i (t ) with hˆ i (−t ).
N 
 
q(t ) = hˆ i (t ) ∗ hˆ i (−t ) . (3)
i
(1)
When the outputs of the matched filtering of hˆ i (t ) with hˆ i (−t )
are added, the main lobe of the q (t)-function is added coherently,
whereas the side lobes destructively interfere to sum to zero. In
the ideal case of an infinite bandwidth of CIR with no multipath
arrivals, the q (t)-function becomes a delta function with zero ISI
[16–18].
3. Experiment and site
The experiments to evaluate the performance of underwater
acoustic communication using the particle velocity and pressure
signal were conducted on October 20, 2015, in a shallow water re-
gion located at 34◦ 48 N, 128◦ 47 E, south of Korea. The nomi-
nal water depth at the site is 59 m [Fig. 3(a)]. An omni-directional
transducer (NEPTUNE, D-11) was used as a source, which was de-
ployed at a depth of 31 m from the side of a small fishing vessel.
The communication signals were received by two receivers (RE-
SON, TC-4014), which were deployed at an average depth of 26 m.
The two receivers were placed 2.5 cm apart, equivalent to λ/5 for
a frequency of 11 kHz, which was a center frequency of the com-
munication signal used here. The horizontal ranges between the
source and the receiver were approximately 72 and 405 m at 0219
and 0522 UTC, respectively. The sound speed profiles were mea-
sured using conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) casts [Fig. 3(b)].
The sound speed structures were similar in both cases and the
sound speeds decreased slightly with depth. A surficial sediment
 S. Kim, H. Kim and S.-k. Jung et al. / Ad Hoc Networks 89 (2019) 161–169
Fig. 3. (a) Experimental layout for the underwater acoustic communication measurements and (b) sound speed profiles measured by conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD)
casts.
Fig. 4. Signaling frame of the communication sequence consisting of a probe signal, a training sequence, and a communication data stream.
sample was taken using a grab sampler. The mean grain size was
analyzed to be 7.3φ , where φ = − log2 (d/d0 ), d is the grain diam-
eter in millimeters, and d0 is a reference length of 1 mm, corre-
sponding to silty clay. The sound speed in the surficial sediment
at the experimental site was estimated to be about 1483 m/s based
on the empirical relationship between the mean grain size and the
sediment sound speed [25]. The wind speeds during the acoustic
measurements were relatively weak (<3 m/s) and therefore the sea
surface remained very calm.
The communication sequence consisted of a 20-ms-long, 9–
13 kHz linear frequency-modulated (LFM) pulse as a probe signal,
followed by a pause lasting 0.48 s, followed by binary phase shift
keying (BPSK) sequences lasting 3.5 s with a center frequency of
11 kHz (Fig. 4). The BPSK signal was composed of 3500 symbols
including a sequence of 100 training symbols prior to the commu-
nication stream. The pulse shaping filter was a root raised cosine
(RRC) filter with a roll-off factor of β = 0.25. The communication
data packets were transmitted every 10 s and repeated 10 times
for each case.
4. Communication results
As mentioned in Section 2, the particle velocity can be es-
timated using the finite difference between the pressure signals
measured by two adjacent receivers. Since two receivers were ver-
tically placed in the experiment, the vertical component of the par-
ticle velocity was only estimated. The acoustic pressure signal at
the central point between the two receivers was estimated using
p1 (t ) + p2 (t )
pM (t ) = . (4)
2
Fig. 5 shows a block diagram of the SIMO system used to de-
code the communication data using the vertical component of
the particle velocity vz (t) and the pressure signal pM (t). The fo-
163
cused communication data y (t) and the q (t)-function were ob-
tained via the time reversal process [26]. The y (t) was passed
through a phase tracking process to compensate for the phase dis-
tortion in the communication data. Phase tracking was carried out
using a decision-feedback phase-locked loop (DFPLL) based on the
maximum likelihood (ML) estimate over an average of 20 sym-
bols prior to the channel equalization [27]. The baseband wave-
form was recovered by multiplying by e−iωt , where ω is the an-
gular frequency. After that, the baseband data were low-pass fil-
tered and passed through an adaptive decision feedback equalizer
(DFE) [27] to compensate for the channel distortion by the resid-
ual ISI. Recursive Least-Squares (RLS) was used to adaptively up-
date the filter weights of equalizer, in which a forgetting factor
was 0.995. One hundred training symbols are also used for adjust-
ing the equalizer coefficient to their optimum value in RLS. The
number of feedforward and feedback filter taps in the equalizer is
related to the delay time spread due to the multipath channel [5].
The tap numbers covering sufficiently the delay time spread were
used in the DFE process. The communication performance was fi-
nally evaluated with the BER and output SNR.
4.1. Channel impulse responses of the particle velocity and pressure
fields
Fig. 6(a) shows the CIRs measured by the two vertically adja-
cent receivers at a source-receiver range of 72 m. The CIRs were
estimated by matched filtering a replica of the transmitted LFM
waveform with the measured probe signals. For the experimental
geometry of the site, the main arrival structure consisted of two
energetic arrivals−direct (D) and sea surface (S) paths. Although
the bottom path was received just after the S arrival, the amplitude
of the bottom reflecting path was lower than that of the D and S
paths due to the large bottom loss. The silty clay on the seabed
of the experimental site is characterized by an acoustically soft
164 S. Kim, H. Kim and S.-k. Jung et al. / Ad Hoc Networks 89 (2019) 161–169
Fig. 5. Block diagram of time reversal using the vertical particle velocity and the pressure signal. The receiver consists of various components to perform finite difference
approximation, time reversal, and adaptive equalization.
Fig. 6. Channel impulse responses for a source-receiver range of 72 m (a) estimated
by two vertically adjacent receivers and (b) estimated using the vertical component
of the particle velocity and the pressure at the center of two receivers.
bottom, which causes a large bottom loss. Therefore, the acoustic
interaction at the bottom limited the number of dominant paths
at this range. The CIRs at the two receivers were highly correlated,
with a correlation coefficient of 0.92.
Fig. 6(b) shows a comparison between the CIR of the vertical
component of the particle velocity and the CIR of the pressure at
the central point of two receivers obtained using Eq. (4). It has
been reported that the time reversal performance degrades as the
signals become more correlated [16,22]. Although the particle ve-
locity and the pressure were measured at the same position, the
correlation was lower than that shown in Fig. 6(a), with a correla-
tion coefficient of 0.56. On the D path, the amplitude of the verti-
cal component of the particle velocity was smaller than that of the
second arrival group, which consisted of the S and B paths, while
the amplitude of the D path was higher than that of the second
Fig. 7. Channel impulse responses estimated using the vertical component of the
particle velocity and the pressure at the center of two receivers at a source-receiver
range of 405 m.
arrival group in terms of the pressure signal. This is because the D
path propagates almost horizontally, and it is a main cause of the
lower correlation value between the vertical particle velocity and
the pressure signal.
Fig. 7 shows the CIRs for the source-receiver range of 405 m.
The correlation coefficient between the vertical component of the
particle velocity and the pressure was estimated to be 0.75. As the
range increases, the horizontal components of the S and B paths
increase. This causes the amplitude of the vertical component of
the particle velocity to be considerably smaller than that of the
pressure signal. However, the amplitude of the D path is still signif-
icantly larger than those of the second arrival paths, and the cor-
relation coefficient (0.75) is higher than that for the range of 72 m,
which implies that the diversity between the channels decreases.
The low correlation between the vertical particle velocity and
the pressure signal provides a large diversity gain, which reduces
the inter-symbol interference by minimizing the sidelobe levels of
the q (t)-function [16,26]. Therefore, the q (t)-function can be used
to evaluate the performance of the time reversal communication
quantitatively. Fig. 8(a) and (b) show the normalized q (t)-functions
of two channels at source-receiver ranges of 72 and 405 m, respec-
tively. These were obtained using the vertical component of the
particle velocity and the pressure signal. The q (t)-function at a
range of 72 m is more similar to the delta-function form than the
q (t)-function at a range of 405 m. This implies that the communi-
cation performance will be better at shorter ranges.
 S. Kim, H. Kim and S.-k. Jung et al. / Ad Hoc Networks 89 (2019) 161–169 165

Fig. 8. Normalized q (t)-functions for two channels obtained using the vertical particle velocity component and the pressure signal at source-receiver ranges of (a) 72 and
(b) 405 m.

4.2. Communication performance analysis
Figs. 9 and 10 are scatter plots of the communication perfor-
mance obtained using the vertical particle velocity and pressure
signal at the ranges of 72 and 405 m, respectively. First, the perfor-
mance was evaluated using the TR alone, and then it was repeated
using TR combined with the PLL (hereafter referred to as TR+PLL),
and finally, the DFE was combined with the TR+PLL (referred to
as TR+PLL+DEF). The results are shown in (a)–(c) respectively. The
values of the BER and output SNR are presented above the scatter

Fig. 9. Scatter plots of time reversal communication performance obtained via (a) TR, (b) TR + PLL, and (c) TR + PLL + DFE receivers using the vertical particle velocity and
pressure signal at a range of 72 m.

Fig. 10. Scatter plots of time reversal communication performance obtained via (a) TR, (b) TR + PLL, and (c) TR + PLL + DFE receivers using the vertical particle velocity and
pressure signal at a range of 405 m.
166 S. Kim, H. Kim and S.-k. Jung et al. / Ad Hoc Networks 89 (2019) 161–169

plots. These are communication performance parameters showing

the number of bit errors and the accuracy of the demodulated sig-
nal [28].
At a range of 72 m, the TR alone had the worst communication
performance, with a BER of 34.1% (11,940/35,0 0 0 symbols) and an
output SNR of −1.2 dB. The demodulated symbols exhibited phase
rotation due to the Doppler effect, induced by movements of the
source and receiver [Fig. 9(a)]. This phase distortion was well com-
pensated for by the PLL, resulting in a low BER (0.04%, 0.03%) and
high output SNR (8.7, 9.1 dB), as shown in Fig. 9(b) and (c). There
was little difference between the performance results obtained by
TR+PLL and TR+PLL+DFE. This implies that TR+PLL using the ver-
tical component of the particle velocity and the pressure signal
were sufficient to mitigate the effects of ISI.
Figs. 10 shows the communication performance results at a
Fig. 11. Scatter plots of the time reversal communication performance obtained via
range of 405 m. The communication using only TR failed, with a TR + PLL + DFE receivers using the pressure signals measured by the two receivers
BER of 47.5% and an output SNR of −3.2 dB. When the TR+PLL was were placed 2.5 cm apart at the ranges of (a) 72 m and (b) 405 m.
used, the performance improved but was still not satisfactory, with
a BER of 4.4%. This is associated with the high correlation between
the vertical component of the particle velocity and the pressure tern is the oscilloscope display to evaluate the effect of channel
signal and the relatively strong side lobe of the q (t)-function, as noise and ISI on the performance of baseband communication sys-
discussed in Section 4.1. When the DFE was used after TR+PLL, the tem [29]. For example, if the eye pattern is closed, it means the
performance was more improved, resulting in a BER of 0.3% and an communication signal is distorted by the ISI or noise. The eye pat-
output SNR of 7.6 dB. terns for the results obtained using the vertical particle velocity
To compare these results to those obtained using the pressure and pressure signal are more open compared to those obtained us-
signal only, the time reversal process was repeated using pressure ing two pressure signals for both ranges. The results imply that the
signals received at the two vertically adjacent receivers at source- communication method using the particle velocity and pressure is
receiver ranges of 72 m and 405 m, and their results are shown in more robust to the ISI.
Fig. 11(a) and (b), respectively. At a range of 72 m, the BER and out-
put SNR obtained using TR+PLL+DFE were 0.8% and 6.7 dB, respec- 5. Summary and discussion
tively. In other words, the communication receiver using the ver-
tical particle velocity and the pressure signal resulted in a 2.4 dB In this paper, the results of underwater acoustic communication
improvement in the output SNR, compared to that using the pres- using acoustic vector quantity were presented. The pressure signal
sure signals. However, there was only a 1.2 dB improvement in the and the vertical component of the particle velocity were used in
output SNR at a range of 405 m. This is because, at this range there the SIMO time-reversal communication system. Although time re-
was a high level of correlation between the vertical particle veloc- versal communication reduces the ISI and increases the SNR signif-
ity and the pressure signal. icantly, the communication performance is inversely proportional
Fig. 12(a) and (b) show the eye patterns for a range of 72 m for to the spatial efficiency. Thus, it is difficult to use the time-reversal
the receiver using the vertical particle velocity and pressure signal communications system in small underwater platforms. As vector
and the receiver using two pressure signals, respectively. The eye quantities such as the acoustic particle velocity and acceleration
pattern for a range of 405 m are shown in Fig. 13. The eye pat- have a direction as well as a magnitude, the x, y, and z components

Fig. 12. Eye patterns for (a) the receiver using the vertical particle velocity and pressure signal and (b) the receiver using two pressure signals at a range of 72 m.
 S. Kim, H. Kim and S.-k. Jung et al. / Ad Hoc Networks 89 (2019) 161–169 167

Fig. 13. Eye patterns for (a) the receiver using the vertical particle velocity and pressure signal and (b) the receiver using two pressure signals at a range of 405 m.

can be measured at a single point using a vector sensor. Then, the
three particle velocity components and the pressure can be con-
sidered as four communication channels. Unfortunately, a vector
sensor was not operated in the communication experiment pre-
sented in this paper. Instead, two vertically adjacent receivers were
used. Therefore, only the vertical component of the particle veloc-
ity could be estimated by the finite difference approximation of
the pressure gradient between the pressure signals measured by
the two receivers. The approximated vertical particle velocity was
then used as multiple outputs with the pressure signal in the SIMO
system.
The underwater communication experiment was conducted in
shallow water off the south coast of Korea in October of 2015.
The seafloor at the experimental site was estimated to be flat and
composed of silty clay with a mean grain size of 7.3φ . The com-
munication measurements were made at source-receiver ranges
of 72 m and 405 m. At a range of 72 m, the TR+PLL had satis-
factory performance with a BER of 0.04%. However, at a range
of 405 m, the BER was 4.4%. After passing the received signal
through the DFE combined with the TR+PLL, the BER was re-
duced to 0.3%. The communication performances obtained using
our system were compared to those obtained from a system that
uses only the pressure signals. The result showed that there were
2.4 dB and 1.2 dB improvements in the output SNR at ranges of 72
and 405 m, respectively. The lower performance gain in the case
of the larger source-receiver range seems to have been caused by
the higher correlation between the pressure signal and the particle
velocity.

Fig. 14. BER performance of time reversal communication as a function of input SNR at source-receiver ranges of (a) 72 m and (b) 405 m. Blue squares and red circles indicate
the mean BER for 50 repetitions for two pressure signals and for vertical particle velocity and pressure signal, respectively. Error bars indicate the standard deviations of the
mean.
168 S. Kim, H. Kim and S.-k. Jung et al. / Ad Hoc Networks 89 (2019) 161–169
In conclusion, time reversal receiver using the vertical particle
velocity and the pressure signal provided a better communication
performance than the time reversal receiver using only the pres-
sure signals. The communication performance at the shorter range
(72 m) was much better than that at the longer range (405 m),
showing almost error-free communication.
To further investigate the performance of time reversal sys-
tem using particle velocity and pressure signal, the communi-
cation performance as a function of input SNR was simulated
for the cases considered in this paper. The simulation process is
as follows; First, the channel impulse responses for the source-
receiver ranges of 72 and 405 m, which are shown in Figs. 6 and
7, were convolved with the communication sequence shown in
Fig. 4, and the additive white gaussian noise (AWGN) was added
with SNR in the range of -2 − 12 dB at an interval of 1 dB. The
50 AWGNs were randomly generated for each SNR step and
the signals were passed through the passive time reversal pro-
cess to decode the communication data. The performance simu-
lation results are shown in Fig. 14. Overall the BER performance
of the time reversal receiver using the vertical particle veloc-
ity and the pressure signal is better than that of the time re-
versal receiver using only the pressure signals. In addition, the
BER performance improves as input SNR increases. However, the
BER for the range of 72 m improves more rapidly with increas-
ing input SNR, compared to those for the range of 405 m. This
is because there was less correlation between the vertical parti-
cle velocity and the pressure signals at shorter range, as discussed
earlier.
Bottom loss depends on the sediment composition. Hence, the
vertical and horizontal components of multipath signals, includ-
ing paths that have been reflected from the seabed, vary with the
sediment composition and the grazing angle at the bottom inter-
face. This may lead to differences in the correlation coefficients be-
tween the pressure and the particle velocity as the source-receiver
range varies. Although only the vertical component of the parti-
cle velocity measured at a single point was used in this paper, the
results imply that the communication based on vector quantities
performs better in underwater acoustic communication environ-
ments. In order to apply this protocol in practical scenarios, further
studies to quantify the efficiency of acoustic vector communication
using vector sensors and/or vector sensor arrays will be carried
out.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Agency for Defense Develop-
ment, Korea, under Grant UD170022DD, the Ministry of Oceans
and Fisheries (in a project titled the development of distributed
underwater monitoring & control networks) and a “Development
of maritime defense and security technology” grant (PE99741), pro-
moted by the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology
(KIOST).
References
[1] D.B. Kilfoyle, A.B. Baggeroer, The state of the art in underwater acoustic
telemetry, IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 25 (20 0 0) 4–27.
[2] P.H. Dahl, J.W. Choi, The East China Sea as an Underwater Acoustic Communi-
cation Channel: measurements of the Channel Impulse Response(U), U.S. Navy
J. Underw. Acoust. 56 (2006) 1–12.
[3] D. Rouseff, M. Badiey, A. Song, Effect of reflected and refracted signals on
coherent underwater acoustic communication: results from the Kauai exper-
iment (KauaiEx 2003), J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126 (5) (2009) 2359–2366.
[4] A. Song, M. Badiey, H.C Song, W.S. Hodgkiss, M.B. Porter, Impact of ocean vari-
ability on coherent underwater acoustic communications during the Kauai ex-
periment (KauaiEx 2003), J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123 (2) (2008) 856–865.
[5] S.U. Son, H. Kim, J. Joo, J.W. Choi, Multipath effects on high-frequency coher-
ent acoustic communications in shallow water, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. (2013) 52
07HG03.
[6] T.C. Yang, Properties of underwater acoustic communication channels in shal-
low water, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131 (1) (2012) 129–145.
[7] P.A. Walree, Propagation and scattering effects in underwater acoustic commu-
nication channels, IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 38 (4) (2013) 614–631.
[8] H. Yu, A. Song, M. Badiey, F. Chen, F. Ji, Iterative estimation of doubly selective
underwater acoustic channel using basis expansion models, Ad Hoc Netw 34
(2015) 52–61.
[9] D. Hirsch, B. Wolf, A simple adaptive equalizer for efficient data transmission,
IEEE J. Trans. Commun. 18 (1970) 5–12.
[10] J.G. Proakis, J.H. Miller, An adaptive receiver for digital signaling though chan-
nel with intersymbol interference, IEEE J. Tran. Inf. Theory 15 (1969) 484–497.
[11] M. Stojanovic, J.A. Catipovic, J.G. Proakis, Adaptive multichannel combining and
equalization for underwater acoustic communication, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94
(1993) 1621–1631.
[12] P. Balaban, J. Salz, Optimum diversity combining and equalization in digital
data transmission with applications to cellular mobile radio, IEEE J. Trans.
Commun. 40 (1992) 885–895.
[13] H.C. Song, W.S. Hodgkiss, W.A. Kuperman, M. Stevenson, T. Akal, Improve-
ment of time-reversal communications using adaptive channel equalizers, IEEE
J. Ocean. Eng. 31 (2) (2006) 487–496.
[14] H.C. Song, W.S. Hodgkiss, W.A. Kuperman, W.J. Higley, K. Raghukumar, T. Akal,
Spatial diversity in passive time reversal communications, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
120 (2006) 2067–2076.
[15] G. Zhang, H. Dong, Joint passive-phase conjugation with adaptive multichannel
combining for coherent underwater acoustic communications, Appl. Acoust. 73
(2012) 433–439.
[16] T.C. Yang, Temporal resolutions of time-reversal and passive-phase conjuga-
tion for underwater acoustic communications, IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 28 (2) (2003)
229–245.
[17] G. Zhang, J.M. Hovem, H.E. Dong, Experimental assessment of different receiver
structures for underwater acoustic communications over multipath channels,
Sensors 12 (2012) 2118–2135.
[18] L. Sun, B. Chen, H. Li, T. Zhou, R Li, Time reversal acoustic communication using
filted multitoned modulation, Sensors 15 (2015) 23554–23571.
[19] D.R. Dall’Osto, J.W. Choi, P.H. Dahl, Measurement of acoustic particle motion in
shallow water and its application to geoacoustic inversion, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
139 (1) (2016) 311–319.
[20] D.R. Dall’Osto, P.H. Dahl, J.W. Choi, Properties of the acoustic intensity vec-
tor field in a shallow water waveguide, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131 (3) (2012)
2023–2035.
[21] G.L. D’Spain, J.C. Luby, G.R. Wilson, R.A Gramann, Vector sensors and vector
sensor line arrays: comments on optimal array gain and detection, J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 120 (1) (2006) 171–185.
[22] A. Abdi, H. Guo, P. Sutthiwan, A new vector sensor receiver for underwater
acoustic communication, J. Trans. Wireless. Commun. 8 (2009) 3326.
[23] F.J. Fahy, in: Sound Intensity, E & FN Spon, London, 1995, pp. 1053–1075.
[24] D. Rouseff, D.R. Jackson, W.L.J. Fox, C.D. Jones, J.A. Ritcey, D.R. Dowling, Un-
derwater acoustic communication by passive-phase conjugation: theory and
experimental results, IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 26 (4) (2001) 821–831.
[25] D.R. Jackson, M.D. Richardson, in: High-Frequency Seafloor Acoustics, Springer,
New York, NY, USA, 2006, pp. 313–314.
[26] S. Kim, S.U. Son, H. Kim, K.H. Choi, J.W. Choi, Estimate of passive time reversal
communication performance in shallow water, Appl. Sci. 8 (1) (2018) 23.
[27] J.G. Proakis, in: Digital Communications, McGraw Hill, NewYork, NY, USA,
2008, pp. 298–315.
[28] M. Stojanovic, J.A. Catipovic, J.G. Proakis, Phase-coherent digital communi-
cations for underwater acoustic channels, IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 19 (1) (1994)
100–111.
[29] B. Sklar, in: Digital Communication, Prentice Hall, Los Angeles, USA, 2006,
pp. 151–152.
Sunhyo Kim received the Ph.D. degrees, from the
Hanyang University (Korea), Department of Environmen-
tal Marine Sciences in 2016. He is currently a postdoctoral
scientist in the Department of Maritime Security Research
Center, Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology
(KIOST), Korea, where he has been since 2019. His re-
search interests include underwater acoustic communica-
tion, underwater acoustic sensor network, Naval oceanog-
raphy, and underwater channel modeling.
 S. Kim, H. Kim and S.-k. Jung et al. / Ad Hoc Networks 89 (2019) 161–169 169

Hyeonsu Kim received the Ph.D. degrees, from the Inha Jee Woong Choi received the Ph.D. degrees, from the
University (Korea), Department of Electronic engineering Hanyang University (Korea), Department of Earth and Ma-
in 2017. He is currently a postdoctoral researcher in the rine Sciences in 20 02. From 20 02 to 2007, he had been
Department of Marine Science and Convergence Engi- a Research Associate at the Applied Physics Laboratory,
neering, Hanyang University-ERICA, Korea, where he has University of Washington, Seattle (USA). He is currently
been since 2017. His research interests include underwa- a Professor in the Department of Marine Science and
ter acoustic communication, underwater acoustic sensor Convergence Engineering, Hanyang University-ERICA, Ko-
network, and underwater channel modeling. rea, where he has been since 2007. In recent years, his
main areas of research have included acoustic propaga-
tion in shallow water, acoustic interaction with ocean
boundaries, geoacoustic inversion, and underwater acous-
tic communication. Dr. Choi is a member of the Acoustical
Society of America and the Acoustical Society of Korea. He
is currently Secretary General of the Western Pacific Commission for Acoustics.
Seom-kyu Jung received the Ph.D. degrees, from the Inha
University (Korea) in 2002. He is currently a Principal
research scientist in the Department of Maritime Secu-
rity Research Center, Korea Institute of Ocean Science and
Technology (KIOST), Korea. In recent years, his main areas
of research have included Shallow seismic data process-
ing and stratigraphy, Side scan sonar data processing and
interpretation, 3-D multi-beam bathymetric data process-
ing and analysis, Naval oceanography, and Geoacoustical
characteristics of ocean bottom sediments.