1

MIMO Underwater Visible Light Communications:
Comprehensive Channel Study, Performance
Analysis, and Multiple-Symbol Detection

arXiv:1704.00909v2 [] 6 Nov 2017

Mohammad Vahid Jamali, Pooya Nabavi, and Jawad A. Salehi, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents a comprehensive study of underwater visible light communications (UVLC), from channel
characterization, performance analysis, and effective transmission and reception methods. To this end, we first simulate
the fading-free impulse response (FFIR) of UVLC channels
using Monte Carlo numerical procedure to take into account
the absorption and scattering effects; and then to characterize
turbulence effects, we multiply the aforementioned FFIR by a
fading coefficient which for weak oceanic turbulence can be
modeled as a lognormal random variable (RV). Based on this
general channel model, we analytically study the bit error rate
(BER) performance of UVLC systems with binary pulse position
modulation (BPPM). In the next step, to mitigate turbulence
effects, we employ multiple transmitters and/or receivers, i.e., we
apply spatial diversity technique over UVLC links. Closed-form
expressions for the system BER are provided, when an equal
gain combiner (EGC) is employed at the receiver side, thanks to
the Gauss-Hermite quadrature formula as well as approximation
to the sum of lognormal RVs. We further apply saddle-point
approximation, an accurate photon-counting method, to evaluate
the system BER in the presence of shot noise. Both laserbased collimated and light emitting diode (LED)-based diffusive
links are investigated. Additionally, in order to reduce the intersymbol interference (ISI), introduced by the multiple-scattering
effect of UVLC channels on the propagating photons, we also
obtain the optimal multiple-symbol detection (MSD) algorithm,
as well as the sub-optimal generalized MSD (GMSD) algorithm.
Our numerical analysis indicate good matches between the
analytical and photon-counting results implying the negligibility
of signal-dependent shot noise, and also between the analytical
results and numerical simulations confirming the accuracy of our
derived closed-form expressions for the system BER. Besides,
our results show that spatial diversity significantly mitigates
fading impairments while (G)MSD considerably alleviates ISI
deterioration.
Index Terms—Underwater visible light communications, BER
performance, lognormal turbulent channels, MIMO, spatial diversity, photon-counting methods, (generalized) multiple-symbol
detection, collimated laser-based links, diffusive LED-based links.

I. I NTRODUCTION

D

UE to its unique advantages, underwater visible light
communications (UVLC) is receiving growing attention as a dominant scheme for high-throughput short-range
underwater wireless communications. Compared to its wellinvestigated counterpart, namely acoustic communications,
Mohammad Vahid Jamali is with the Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (e-mail:
mvjamali@umich.edu). Pooya Nabavi is with the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA (e-mail:
pooya.nabavi@gmail.com). And Jawad A. Salehi is with the Optical Networks
Research Laboratory (ONRL), Department of Electrical Engineering, Sharif
University of Technology, Tehran, Iran (e-mail: jasalehi@sharif.edu).

UVLC has many superiorities including higher bandwidth,
lower time latency, and better security. Moreover, UVLC
systems are relatively cost-effective and easy-to-install. Thanks
to these peerless advantages, UVLC can be considered as
an alternative to meet the requirements of high-speed and
large-data underwater communications and to be applied in
various underwater applications such as imaging, real-time
video transmission, high-throughput sensor networks, etc. [1],
[2]. Despite all these advantages, several phenomena, namely
absorption, scattering, and turbulence, adversely affect the
photons’ propagation under water. These factors cause loss,
inter-symbol interference (ISI), and fading on the received
optical signal, respectively, and limit the viable communication
range of UVLC systems to typically shorter than 100 m.
This impediment hampers on the widespread usage of UVLC
systems for longer ranges and necessitates intelligent system
design and efficient transmission and reception methods.
Considerable research activities, both theoretically and experimentally, have been accomplished to characterize absorption and scattering effects of different water types [3], [4].
Modeling of a UVLC channel and its performance evaluation
using radiative transfer theory have been presented in [5].
Based on the experimental results reported in [3], [4], Tang
et al. [1] used Monte Carlo (MC) approach to simulate the
fading-free impulse response (FFIR) of UVLC channels with
respect to absorption and scattering effects. They also fitted
a double gamma function (DGF) to this impulse response
and numerically evaluated the system bit error rate (BER)
without considering turbulence effects. Also, the FFIR of
multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) UVLC systems has
recently been simulated in [6] and a weighted Gamma function
polynomial (WGFP) has been proposed to model the FFIR of
MIMO-UVLC links with arbitrary number of light sources and
detectors. Moreover, in [7] a cellular code division multiple
access (CDMA) UVLC network has been introduced based
on assigning a unique optical orthogonal code (OOC) to each
underwater mobile user. Meanwhile, potential applications
and challenges of the aforementioned underwater cellular
optical CDMA network, and the beneficial application of serial
relaying on its users’ performance have very recently been
investigated in [8] and [9], respectively. In the mean time,
performance analysis of multi-hop UVLC systems with respect
to all of the channel degrading effects can be found in [10].
On the other hand, optical turbulence, which results as
a consequence of random variations in the water refractive
index, causes fluctuations and fading on the received optical signal. This phenomenon is called turbulence-induced
fading and adversely affects the performance of UVLC sys-

2

tems, especially for longer link ranges. Therefore, the precise
estimation of the performance of UVLC systems requires
accurate and detailed characterization of underwater optical
turbulence. Recently, some useful results have been reported
in the literature on characterizing underwater turbulence. An
accurate power spectrum has been derived for fluctuations of
turbulent seawater refractive index [11]. Based on this power
spectrum and Rytov method, the scintillation index of optical
plane and spherical waves propagating in underwater turbulent
medium have been evaluated in [12], [13]. In [14], the onaxis scintillation index of a focused Gaussian beam has been
formulated in weak oceanic turbulence and, by considering
lognormal distribution for intensity fluctuations, the average
BER is evaluated.
This research, as a comprehensive work, aims to thoroughly
investigate the UVLC channel for different channel conditions and system configurations, and then suggest effective
solutions as intelligent transmission and reception methods to
alleviate the channel impediments and extend the boundaries.
Therefore, we first extensively study the UVLC channel for
both collimated and diffusive links and investigate the channel
temporal and spatial spread in various conditions. Then as
a potent method for mitigating turbulence-induced fading, as
a serious channel impairment, we apply MIMO transmission
and analytically evaluate the performance of MIMO-UVLC
systems with respect to all of the channel degrading effects.
Finally, multiple-symbol detection (MSD) and generalized
MSD (GMSD) algorithms, as effective detection methods for
ISI channels, will be investigated. A significant advantage of
binary pulse position modulation (BPPM) compared to onoff keying (OOK) modulation is that the detection process in
BPPM does not require any channel state information (CSI).
Therefore, all of the derived detection algorithms in this paper,
even (G)MSD, are based on the absence of CSI.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section II, we review the UVLC channel modeling, including
MC simulation method for collimated and diffusive links
as well as underwater turbulence characteristics, followed
by describing the BPPM-based MIMO-UVLC system with
equal gain combiner (EGC). In Section III, we analytically
calculate the BER expressions for both single-input singleoutput (SISO) and MIMO configurations. The BER closedform solutions are also obtained in this section using GaussHermite quadrature formula. In Section IV, we apply saddlepoint approximation to evaluate the system BER in the presence of shot noise using photon-counting method. Section V
derives the (G)MSD algorithm(s) for BPPM UVLC systems,
Section VI presents the numerical results for various link configurations and system parameters, and Section VII concludes
the paper.
II. C HANNEL AND S YSTEM M ODEL
A. FFIR Simulation Using Monte Carlo Method
Through the propagation of optical beam under water,
interactions between each photon and seawater particles causes
absorption and scattering phenomena. Absorption is an irreversible process where photons interact with water molecules

and other particles and thermally lose their energy. In the scattering process, this interaction alters the propagation direction
of each photon which, in addition to ISI, can also cause energy
loss since fewer photons will be captured by the receiver
aperture. Energy loss of non-scattered light due to absorption
and scattering can be characterized by absorption coefficient
a(λ) and scattering coefficient b(λ), respectively. And the
total effect of absorption and scattering on energy loss can be
described by extinction coefficient c (λ) = a (λ) + b(λ). These
coefficients can vary with the source wavelength λ and water
type [1]. It has been shown in [3] and [15] that absorption
and scattering have their lowest effects at the interval 400 nm
< λ < 530 nm; thus, UVLC systems apply the blue/green
region of the visible light spectrum to actualize underwater
optical data communications.
In order to take into account the absorption and scattering
effects of UVLC channels, we use MC numerical method to
simulate the channel impulse response regardless of turbulence
effects, in a similar approach to [1], [16], [17]. We name this
impulse response as FFIR of the channel and denote it by
h0,ij (t) for the channel between the ith transmitter and jth
receiver.
The basic steps of FFIR simulation using MC method can be
summarized as follows. First, we generate numerous photons
at the transmitter, each with assigned initial attributes. Specific
attributes of each photon include their position in Cartesian
coordinates (x, y, z), the transmission direction described by
zenith angle θ and azimuth angle φ, the transmission time t,
and the weight of each photon W . For sources with narrow
emission aperture, the initial attributes of each photon can be
considered as (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 0), t = 0, and W = 1. While
propagating through the channel, each photon may interact
with suspended particles; therefore, after each interaction, the
photons’ attributes should be updated according to the detailed
steps described in [1], [16]. The tracking of each photon, i.e.,
updating its attributes, should be continued until the photon
reaches the receiving plane (located at the distance z = d0
from the transmitter, which d0 is the link length) or its weight
lies below a certain threshold Wth . Finally, those photons
that reach the receiving plane with an acceptable weight will
be selected as the detected photons if they are within the
receiver aperture and their zenith angle is smaller than half
of the receiver field of view (FOV). The above steps must be
repeated for all photons and all attributes of detected photons
should be recorded to obtain the histogram of the received
intensity versus time. The latter, which corresponds to the
channel impulse response, can be obtained by summing the
weight of detected photons within a specific propagation time
(corresponding to the time interval of a specific bin of the
histogram) and normalizing the sum by the total transmit
weight.
In this paper, we study both collimated and diffusive UVLC
links based on lasers and LEDs, respectively. It is worth mentioning that the main difference of channel FFIR simulation
for collimated and diffusive links is in the initial transmission
direction, i.e., in the initial values of θ and φ for the emitted
photons of the transmitter. Similar to [16], [17], we assume
Gaussian narrow beam lasers with the half divergence angle of

3

θdiv and beam waist radius of Wr . As it is elaborated in [16],
[18], the emitted photons’ initial zenith angle for collimated
Gaussian beam lasers can be chosen as;
q

,
(1)
θ0Collimated = θdiv × − ln 1 − rθCollimated
0
where rθCollimated
∼ U(0, 1) is a random variable (RV) with
0
uniform distribution in the interval [0, 1]. Also, we assume the
beam is radially symmetric; hence, we randomly choose the
initial value of the azimuth angle, φCollimated
, with uniform
0
distribution in the interval [0, 2π].
On the other hand, many practical underwater optical communication systems use LEDs as optical sources, due to their
low cost, ease of engineering, and reduced difficulties in
pointing and tracking [17]. Similar to [16], [17], we model
diffusive LED-based links as generalized Lambertian radiant intensity light sources. For such sources the azimuthally
symmetric polar angle distribution of radiant intensity can be
approximated as;
m+1
cosm (θ),
(2)
2π
in which m relates to the transmitter’s semi-angle at halfpower, θ1/2 , Ras cosm (θ1/2 ) = 0.5, and Ψ0 (θ) is normalized
π
such that 2π 0 Ψ0 (θ) sin(θ)dθ = 1. Equating the integral of
R θ0Diffusive
2π 0
Ψ0 (θ)
sin(θ)dθ to a uniformly chosen RV in the interval [0, 1],
rθDiffusive
, yields the random value of the initial zenith angle
0
as;

 q
.
(3)
θ0Diffusive = cos−1 m+1 1 − rθDiffusive
0

Background
Light

𝑇𝑋1

Dark Current &
Thermal Noise

𝑅𝑋1

𝑇 2



0
𝑇

(𝑠)

𝑟1



𝑇 2

𝑇𝑋𝑖

ℎ𝑖𝑗 ℎ0,𝑖𝑗 (𝑡)

𝑇 2

𝑅𝑋𝑗



0
𝑇

𝑟𝑗

(𝑓) 

𝑟𝑗

(𝑠)

𝑇 2
𝑇 2

𝑇𝑋𝑀

𝑅𝑋𝑁



0
𝑇

EGC

(𝑓)

𝑟1




(𝑓) 



𝑟

𝑟 (𝑓)
(𝑠)

𝑟𝑁

(𝑠)

𝑟𝑁

𝑇 2

(a)

𝑃𝑖

0

(𝑡)

𝑃𝑖

2𝑃𝑖

0

𝑇/2 𝑇

1

(𝑡)
2𝑃𝑖

𝑡

0

𝑇/2 𝑇

𝑡

(b)

Ψ0 (θ) =

Once again, we assume the source is azimuthally symmetric;
hence, we choose the initial value of the emitted photons’
azimuth angle with a uniform distribution in the interval
[0, 2π].
B. Turbulence Effects of UVLC Channels
While multipath reflection is the most significant cause
of fading in acoustic and radio frequency (RF) links, the
refractive index random variation of the medium conveying
optical signals, also called as optical turbulence, is the main
inducement of optical signals fading. These random variations
in underwater medium dominantly result from fluctuations
in temperature and salinity [19]. To characterize turbulence
effects, we multiply h0,ij (t) by a positive multiplicative fading
coefficient, h̃ij [20]–[23].1 Weak oceanic turbulence can be
modeled with lognormal distribution [14], [25] as;
 
2 
ln(
h̃
)−2µ
ij
Xij
1


q
fh̃ij (h̃ij ) =
exp−
, (4)
2
2
8σ
X
2h̃ij 2πσ
ij
Xij

1 Note that based on the numerical and experimental results presented in
[19] and [24], respectively, the channel coherence time is on the order of 10−5
to 10−2 seconds, which is much larger than the channel typical delay spread
values provided in [1] (i.e., mainly smaller than tens of ns). Therefore, we
can assume that conditioned on the fading coefficient value, h̃i,j , the channel
FFIR is h̃i,j h0,ij (t), i.e., the total aggregated channel impulse response can
in general be modeled as h̃i,j h0,ij (t), with h̃i,j as a RV.

Fig. 1. (a) Block diagram of the proposed MIMO-UVLC system with BPPM
signaling and EGC; (b) BPPM pulse shapes for the transmitted data bits “0”
and “1”.

where µXij and σXij are respectively the mean and variance of
the Gaussian distributed log-amplitude factor Xij = 21 ln(h̃ij ).
To ensure that fading neither amplifies nor attenuates the
average power, we normalize fading amplitude such that
2
E[h̃ij ] = 1, which implies that µXij = −σX
[20].
ij
The scintillation index of a light wave with intensity Iij =
h̃ij I0,ij is defined by [21];
σI2ij =

2
E[Iij
] − E2 [Iij ]

E2 [Iij ]

=

E[h̃2ij ] − E2 [h̃ij ]
E2 [h̃ij ]

,

(5)

in which I0,ij is the fading-free intensity. It can be shown that
for the turbulent channel with lognormal fading distribution,
the scintillation index is related to the log-amplitude variance
2
) − 1 [21]. Based on the numerical
as σI2ij = exp(4σX
ij
results presented in [12], [13], depending on various turbulence
parameters, strong turbulence (specified by σI2ij > 1 [21]) can
occur at distances as long as 100 m and as short as 10 m,
which impressively differs from atmospheric channels where
strong turbulence distances are on the order of kilometers
[12]. Therefore, mitigating such a strong turbulence demands
advanced transmission methods like MIMO technique.
C. System Model
We consider a UVLC system where the information signal
is transmitted by M transmitters, received by N apertures, and
combined using EGC. As it is depicted in Fig. 1(a), optical
signal through propagation from the ith transmitter T X i to the
jth receiver RX j experiences the aggregated channel impulse
response hi,j (t) = h̃ij h0,ij (t), as discussed in the previous
subsection. We assume intensity modulation direct-detection
(IM/DD) with BPPM signaling. In this scheme, bits “0” and
“1” of each time slot will be transmitted with pulse shapes
(0)
(1)
Pi (t) and Pi (t), respectively, as it is shown in Fig. 1(b).

4

The ith transmitter pulse carries the average transmitted power
per bit of Pi (or equivalently the peak transmitted power of
2Pi ), P
which relates to the total average transmitted power as
M
P = i=1 Pi . Therefore, the ith transmitter data stream can
be represented as;
Si (t) =

∞
X

(0)

bk Pi (t − kT ) +

∞
X

(1)

bk Pi (t − kT ), (6)

k=−∞

k=−∞

where bk is the kth slot transmitted bit, bk = 1 − bk interprets
the binary complement of bk , and T denotes the bit duration
time. Eq. (6) implies that if bk = 0 the kth slot data will
(0)
be transmitted with pulse shape Pi (t − kT ) and vice versa.
Hence, we can express the received optical signal from T Xi
to RXj as;
yi,j (t) = Si (t) ∗ h̃ij h0,ij (t) =
∞
∞
X
X
(0)
(1)
bk Γi,j (t − kT ) + h̃ij
h̃ij
bk Γi,j (t − kT ),

(7)

k=−∞

k=−∞
(l)

(l)

in which Γi,j (t) = h0,ij (t) ∗ Pi (t), l = 0, 1 and ∗ denotes
the convolution operator. Furthermore, due to the photons’
multiple scattering, portions of the transmitted signals of
all transmitters
PM can be captured by each jth receiver, i.e.,
yj (t) = i=1 yi,j (t) [20].
III. A NALYTICAL S TUDY OF THE BER
In this section, we analytically evaluate the system BER
for both SISO and MIMO configurations with EGC. Our
analytical approach in this section is based on additive white
Gaussian noise (AWGN) model which, similar to [20] and
[26], assumes the incoming optical signal as a constant coefficient (conditioned on the fading coefficient) and all of
the noise components as an aggregated additive Gaussian
noise component. We also assume that the signal-dependent
shot noise has a negligible effect on the system performance
compared to the other noise components [27]; therefore, the
combined noise variance is independent of the incoming
optical signal power.
A. SISO-UVLC
Based on (7), the integrated current over the first and second
half of the 0th bit duration time, when “b0 ” is sent at the 0th
time slot, can respectively be expressed as;

(f,b0 )
rSISO = h̃ b0 γ (f,S0 ) + b0 γ (f,S1 ) +
−1
X



bk γ (f,I0 ,k) + bk γ (f,I1 ,k)



(f )

+ vT /2 , (8)

k=−L
(s,b )

rSISO0


= h̃ b0 γ (s,S0 ) + b0 γ (s,S1 ) +
−1 
X

bk γ

(s,I0 ,k)

+ bk γ

k=−L

#
h̃
C (k) , (10)
γ (f,S0 ) − γ (s,S0 ) +
= Qq
2
2σTc
k=−L


"

−1
X

√
R∞
where Q (x) = (1/ 2π) x exp(−y2 /2)dy is the Gaussian
Q  function and C (k)
= bk γ (f,I1 ,k) − γ (s,I1 ,k) +

bk γ (f,I0 ,k) − γ (s,I0 ,k) . Similar steps result to the following
expression for the conditional probability of error on the
transmitted bit “1”;

"
#
−1
X
h̃
SISO
Pbe|1,
= Qq
γ (s,S1 ) − γ (f,S1 ) −
C (k) . (11)
h̃,bk
2
2σTc
k=−L
The final BER can then be obtained by averaging over the
fading coefficient and all 2L possible data sequences for the
transmitted data bits as;
Z
i
1 X ∞ 1 h SISO
SISO
SISO
Pbe|0,h̃,b + Pbe|1,
fh̃ (h̃)dh̃.
Pbe
= L
h̃,bk
k
2
2
0
bk

(s,I1 ,k)



(12)
+

(s)
vT /2 ,

(9)

k=−L

R T /2

R = ηq/hf is the photodetector resposivity, where η is the
photodetector quantum efficiency, q = 1.602 × 10−19 C is the
electron charge, h = 6.626 × 10−34 J.s is Planck’s constant,
andR f is the optical source frequency. Moreover,
γ (f,Il ,k) =
RT
T /2 (l)
(s,Il ,k)
(l)
R 0 Γ (t − kT )dt, and γ
= R T /2 Γ (t − kT )dt,
(f,S0 )
(s,S1 )
l = 0, 1. Obviously, γ
=γ
and γ (f,I0 ,k) = γ (s,I1 ,k) .
(f )
(s)
In addition, vT /2 and vT /2 are the integrated noise components
of the first and second half of the bit duration time, each
with a Gaussian distribution with mean zero and variance
σT2 c = 4Kb Te BTc2 /RL + 2qRPBG BTc2 + 2qIdc BTc2 , where
Tc = T /2 is the chip duration time. Kb , Te , B, and RL
are Boltzmann’s constant, the receiver equivalent temperature, electronic bandwidth, and load resistance, respectively.
Moreover, PBG is the received background power and Idc
is the photodetector dark current [26], [28], [29]. It is worth
mentioning that the large coherence time of the channel
compared to the bit duration time implies to the same fading
coefficient for thousands up to millions of consecutive bits
[19]. Therefore, we adopted the same fading coefficient for
all consecutive bits in (8) and (9).
In this section, we assume bit-by-bit detection which is
suboptimal in the presence of ISI [30]. In this case, the receiver
simply compares its integrated current over the first and second
half of each time slot to detect the received data bits. Then
the conditional probability of error on the transmitted bit “0”
can be determined as;


(f,b0 )
(s,b0 )
SISO
Pbe|0,
=
Pr
r
≤
r
|b
=
0,
h̃,
b
0
k
SISO
SISO
h̃,bk
"
#!
−1
X
(s)
(f )
= Pr vT /2 −vT /2 ≥ h̃ γ (f,S0 ) −γ (s,S0 ) + C (k)

in which γ (f,Sl ) = R 0 Γ(l) (t)dt, and γ (s,Sl ) =
RT
R T /2 Γ(l) (t)dt, l = 0, 1. Also L is the channel memory and

In the special case of weak oceanic turbulence, where fading
coefficient can be modeled as a lognormal RV [14], [25], the
averaging over fading coefficient can effectively be calculated
using Gauss-Hermite quadrature formula [30, Eq. (25.4.46)]

5

as follows;
SISO
Pbe|b
0 ,bk

∞

Z
=
0

1
≈√
π

SISO
Pbe|b
f (h̃)dh̃
,h̃,b h̃
0

V
X

k

wq P SISO



√ 2
,
be|b0 ,h̃=exp 2xq 2σX
+2µX ,bk

q=1

(13)

in which V is the order of approximation, wq , q = 1, 2, ..., V ,
are weights of the V th-order approximation, and xq is the qth
zero of the V th-order Hermite polynomial, HV (x) [20], [31].
B. MIMO-UVLC
Based on Eq. (7) and the receiver structure in Fig. 1(a),
corresponding to the MIMO UVLC system with EGC2 , we
can express the receiver integrated current over the first and
second half of the 0th bit duration time, when “b0 ” is sent at
the 0th time slot, respectively as;
(f,b )

0
rMIMO
=

M X
N
X



(f,S )
(f,S )
h̃ij b0 γi,j 0 + b0 γi,j 1

M X
N
−1 
N
 X
X
X
(f,I ,k)
(f,I ,k)
(f,j)
h̃ij
bk γi,j 0 +bk γi,j 1
+ vT /2 , (14)
+

(s,b )

0
rMIMO
=



+

i=1 j=1

h̃ij

(s,S0 )

h̃ij b0 γi,j

−1 
X

k=−Lij

where fH̃ (H̃) is the joint probability density function (PDF)
of fading coefficients in H̃.
It is worth mentioning that in the special case of lognormal
the (M × N )-dimensional averaging integral
R fading,
MIMO
of H̃ Pbe|b
f (H̃)dH̃ can effectively be calculated
0 ,H̃,bk H̃
by (M × N )-dimensional finite series, using Gauss-Hermite
quadrature formula, as follows [32];
Z
V11
X
1
MIMO
MIMO
w(11)
Pbe|b0 ,bk =
Pbe|b
H̃)d
H̃
≈
f
(
0 ,H̃,bk H̃
π M ×N/2 q =1 q11
H̃
VX
V21
MN
X
(21)
N)
× wq21 ...
wq(M
×P MIMO
MN
q21 =1

(s,S1 )

+ b0 γi,j

(s,I0 ,k)

bk γi,j

(s,I1 ,k)

+bk γi,j

N
 X
(s,j)
+ vT /2 , (15)
j=1

where Lij is the memory of the channel between the ith
(f,j)
(s,j)
transmitter and jth receiver. vT /2 and vT /2 are the integrated
noise components of the first and second half of the bit duration time, each with a Gaussian distribution with
zero
R T /2mean
(f,S )
(l)
and variance σT2 c [26]. Moreover, γi,j l = R 0 Γi,j (t)dt,
RT
R T /2 (l)
(s,S )
(l)
(f,I ,k)
γi,j l = R T /2 Γi,j (t)dt, γi,j l = R 0 Γi,j (t − kT )dt,
RT
(s,I ,k)
(0)
and γi,j l = R T /2 Γi,j (t − kT )dt, l = 0, 1.
(f,b )

0
The symbol-by-symbol receiver simply compares rMIMO
(s,b0 )
and rMIMO to detect the received data bits. Therefore, the
conditional probabilities of error on the transmitted bits “0”
and “1” can respectively be calculated as;



−1
M X
N
X
X
h̃
(f,S0 )
(s,S )
(k)
MIMO
q ij γij
−γij 0 + Ci,j ,
Pbe|0,
= Q
H̃,bk
2
2N σTc
i=1 j=1
k=−Lij
(16)



M
N
−1
XX h̃ij
X
(s,S1 )
(f,S )
(k)
MIMO
γij
q
Pbe|1,
= Q
−γij 1 − Ci,j ,
H̃,bk
2
2N σTc
i=1 j=1
k=−Lij
(17)

in which H̃ = (h̃11 , h̃12 , ..., h̃MhN ) is the fading ico(k)
(f,I ,k)
(s,I ,k)
efficients vector, and Ci,j = bk γi,j 1 − γi,j 1
+

qM N =1

ij

Moreover, based on (16) and (17),
reformulate
Pwe can

(b0 )
M PN
MIMO
MIMO
Pbe|b
as
P
=
Q
G
h̃
ij
i=1
j=1 i,j
be|b0 ,H̃,bk
0 ,H̃,bk
where;


−1
X
1
(k)
(f,S
)
(s,S
)
(0)
γij 0 − γij 0 +
Ci,j  , (20)
Gi,j = q
2N σT2 c
k=−Lij


−1
X
1
(s,S1 )
(f,S )
(1)
(k)
γij
Gi,j = q
− γij 1 −
Ci,j  . (21)
2
2N σTc
k=−Lij
In the special case of lognormal fading, we can approximate
PM PN
(b0 )
the weighted sum of
i=1
j=1 Gi,j h̃ij as an equivalent
(b0 )
(b0 )
lognormal RV, α
= exp(2z ), with the following logamplitude mean and variance [33];
X

N X
M
1
(b )
(22)
Gi,j0 − σz2(b0 ) ,
µz(b0 ) = ln
2
j=1 i=1

σz2(b0 ) =

is shown in [32] that EGC provides a close performance to the optimal
combiner, and hence, due to its lower complexity, can be consider as a
practical combining method in MIMO UVLC systems.

1 
ln 1 +
4

PN PM 
j=1

i=1

(b )

Gi,j0

P
N PM
j=1

2 

i=1

e

2
4σX

(b )

Gi,j0

ij

2


−1 
.
(23)

Therefore, using the aforementioned approximation,
the (M × N )-dimensional integrals in (18) reduce
to
one-dimensional
counterparts
of
the
form
R
P MIMO
f
(α(b0 ) )dα(b0 ) , where fα(b0 ) (α(b0 ) )
α(b0 ) be|b0 ,α(b0 ) ,bk α(b0 )
is the PDF of the equivalent lognormal RV.
3 Note

2 It



.
q
(ij)
2
be|b0 ,h̃ij =exp 2xqij 2σX
+2µXij ,bk

(19)



i=1 j=1
M X
N
X

(18)

j=1

k=−Lij
M X
N
X

bk

11

i=1 j=1

i=1 j=1

h
i
(f,I ,k)
(s,I ,k)
bk γi,j 0 − γi,j 0
. Then if the maximum channel memory is Lmax = max{L11 , L12 , ..., LM N }, the final BER can
be obtained by averaging over the fading coefficients vector
and all 2Lmax possible data sequences for the transmitted bits
as3 ;
Z
i
1 h MIMO
1 X
MIMO
MIMO
Pbe|0,H̃,b +Pbe|1,
fH̃ (H̃)dH̃,
Pbe
= Lmax
H̃,bk
k
2
H̃ 2

that if some of the links have smaller channel memory than Lmax ,
(.,.,k)
i.e., if Lij < Lmax , we can consider additional zero coefficients as γi,j
=
0, − Lmax ≤ k ≤ −Lij − 1 for those channels to make all the channels
with the same memory Lmax .

6

(f,b )

(s,b )

0
0
and {bk }−1
k=−L , ySISO and ySISO are Poisson RVs with mean
(f,b0 )
(s,b0 )
mSISO and mSISO , respectively as;

IV. BER E VALUATION U SING P HOTON -C OUNTING
M ETHOD
In this section, we apply saddle-point approximation [30],
which is based on photon-counting method, to evaluate the
system BER in the presence of shot noise. Specifically, in
order to take into account the shot noise effect, in this
section, we consider the incoming optical signal as a Poisson
distributed RV (conditioned on H̃). Moreover, we consider
thermal noise with Gaussian distribution, and dark current and
background light both with Poisson distribution [30]. The bitby-bit photon-counting receiver compares the photoelectrons
count over the first and second half of the bit duration time to
detect the received data. Then the conditional probability of
error, when “b0 ” is sent, can be obtained using saddle-point
approximation as [23], [30];
h
i

 exp ΦA(b0 ) |H̃,bk(sb0 )
,
Pbe|b0 ,H̃,bk= Pr A(b0 ) ≥ 0 b0 , H̃, bk = q
00
2πΦA(b0 ) |H̃,b (sb0 )
k

(24)
in which, A(0) = u(s,0) − u(f,0) and A(1) = u(f,1) − u(s,1) ,
where u(f,b0 ) and u(s,b0 ) are respectively the photoelectrons
count of the first and second half of the bit duration time when
“b0 ” is sent. Moreover, sb0 is the positive and real root of the
0
first derivative of ΦA(b0 ) |H̃,bk (s), i.e., ΦA(b0 ) |H̃,b (sb0 ) = 0
k
while ΦA(b0 ) |H̃,bk (s) itself is defined as;
h
i
ΦA(b0 ) |H̃,bk (s) = ln ΨA(b0 ) |H̃,bk (s) − ln|s|,
(25)
where ΨA(b0 ) |H̃,bk (s) is the moment generating function
(MGF) of A(b0 ) conditioned on H̃ and {bk }−1
k=−Lmax , defined
sA(b0 )
as E[e
|H̃, bk ], which for b0 = 0 and 1 can respectively
be calculated as [23];


h̃
b0 γ (f,S0 ) + b0 γ (f,S1 )
=
q
−1 

X
(bd)
+
+ mSISO ,
bk γ (f,I0 ,k) + bk γ (f,I1 ,k)

(f,b )
mSISO0


h̃
b0 γ (s,S0 ) + b0 γ (s,S1 )
q
−1 

X
(bd)
(s,I0 ,k)
(s,I1 ,k)
+ mSISO ,
bk γ
+ bk γ
+

(s,b )

0
mSISO
=

(29)

k=−L
(bd)

where mSISO is the mean of photoelectrons count, due to
background light and dark current noise, integrated over Tc .
Since Poisson distribution is assumed for these two noise components, the mean and variance of the aforementioned count
(bd)
2
process is the same, i.e., mSISO = σbd,SISO
= (nb + nd )T /2,
where nb = 2ηPBG BTc /hf and nd = 2Idc BTc /q are the
photoelectrons count rates due to background light and dark
current noise, respectively.
(f,b )
(f )
Since ySISO0 and vth are two independent RVs, MGF of
(f,b0 )
their sum, uSISO , is the product of each one’s MGF, i.e.,
Ψu(f,b0 ) |h̃,b (s) = Ψy(f,b0 ) |h̃,b (s) × Ψv(f ) (s)
k
k
th
SISO
SISO

 2
σth 2
(f,b0 ) s
s + mSISO (e − 1) .
= exp
2

(30)

Also the MGF of the receiver integrated output over the second
half of the bit duration time can be obtained as;


ΨA(0) |H̃,bk (s) = Ψu(s,0) |H̃,bk (s) × Ψu(f,0) |H̃,bk (−s), (26)

(28)

k=−L

Ψu(s,b0 ) |h̃,b (s) = exp
SISO

k


2
σth
(s,b0 ) s
s2 + mSISO
(e − 1) .
2

(31)

ΨA(1) |H̃,bk (s) = Ψu(f,1) |H̃,bk (s) × Ψu(s,1) |H̃,bk (−s), (27)
in which Ψu(.,.) |H̃,bk (s) is the MGF of u(.,.) conditioned on
H̃ and {bk }−1
k=−Lmax . In this section, we extract MGFs of
the receiver output for both SISO and MIMO configurations
to obtain the conditional BERs through (24)-(27). The final
BER Pbe can then be measured by averaging over H̃ and
{bk }−1
k=−Lmax .
A. SISO UVLC Link
In SISO scheme, the photo-detected signal generated by
(f,b )
the integrate-and-dump circuit can be expressed as uSISO0 =
(f,b )
(f )
(s,b0 )
(s,b )
(s)
ySISO0 +vth and uSISO
= ySISO0 +vth for the first and second
(f )
(s)
half of the bit duration time, respectively. vth and vth are
the integrated thermal noise components of the receiver over
the first and second half of the bit duration time, respectively,
each with a Gaussian distribution with mean zero and variance
(f,b )
(s,b )
2
σth
= 4Kb Te BTc2 /RL q 2 . Moreover, ySISO0 and ySISO0 are
respectively the photoelectrons count over the first and second
half of the bit duration time, resulted from the incoming optical
signal, dark current, and background light. Conditioned on h̃

By substituting (30) and (31) in (24)-(27), one can obtain the
SISO
conditional probability of error Pbe|b
using saddle-point
0 ,h̃,bk
approximation, and the final BER can then be evaluated similar
to (12).

B. MIMO UVLC Link
Similar to previous subsection, the photo-detected signal
generated by the integrate-and-dump circuit of the MIMO
(f,b0 )
(f,b0 )
(f,N )
receiver can be expressed as uMIMO
= yMIMO
+ vth
(s,b0 )
(s,b0 )
(s,N )
and uMIMO = yMIMO + vth
for the first and second
(f,N )
half of the bit duration time, respectively, where vth
and
(s,N )
2
vth
are zero mean Gaussian RVs with variance N σth
,
corresponding to the integrated and combined thermal noise
components of the receiver over the first and second half of the
(f,b0 )
(s,b0 )
bit duration time, respectively. Moreover, yMIMO
and yMIMO
are the photoelectrons count of the MIMO system over the
first and second half of the bit duration time, respectively.
(f,b0 )
(s,b0 )
Conditioned on H̃ and {bk }−1
k=−Lmax , yMIMO and yMIMO are

7

where Z(t) is the receiver noise component. Using the
Karhunen-Loève expansion, we can expand the received signal
into a series of the form;

Poisson RVs with mean;
(f,b )

0
uMIMO
=

M X
N
X
h̃ij 
i=1 j=1

q

(f,S0 )

b0 γi,j

(f,S1 )

+ b0 γi,j



M X
−1
N

X
h̃ij X  (f,I0 ,k)
(f,I ,k)
(bd)
+
bk γi,j
+bk γi,j 1
+mMIMO ,
q
i=1 j=1
k=−Lij

(32)
(s,b )

0
uMIMO
=

M X
N
X
h̃ij 
i=1 j=1

M X
N
X

h̃ij
q
i=1 j=1

+

−1
X

q

(s,S0 )

b0 γi,j

(s,S1 )

+ b0 γi,j



(s,I0 ,k)

bk γi,j

(s,I1 ,k)

+bk γi,j



k=−Lij

(33)
(bd)

respectively, in which mMIMO = (nb +N nd )T /2.4 Eventually,
the MGF of the receiver integrated output over the first
and second half of the bit duration time can respectively be
obtained as;


2
N σth
(f,b0 )
s2 + mMIMO
(es − 1) , (34)
Ψu(f,b0 ) |H̃,b (s) = exp
k
MIMO
2


2
N σth
(s,b0 )
Ψu(s,b0 ) |H̃,b (s) = exp
s2 + mMIMO
(es − 1) . (35)
k
MIMO
2
By substituting (34) and (35) in (24)-(27), the conditional
MIMO
can be obtained and the
probability of error Pbe|b
0 ,H,bk
final BER can then be evaluated similar to (18). We should
emphasize that the approximation to the sum of lognormal RVs
can also be applied (similar to (20)-(23)) to approximate the
(M × N )-dimensional integrals with one-dimensional counterparts.

Rh̃

∞
X
k=−∞
∞
X

∞
X

(1)

bk Γm,k + Zm , (38)

k=−∞
(1)

= hΓ(0) (t − kT ).ϕm (t)i, Γm,k = hΓ(1) (t −
and h.i denotes the projection operator. Furthermore, Zm = hZ(t).ϕm (t)i which has a Gaussian distribution
2
with mean zero and variance σZ
. The joint PDF of F
m
(F )
observable RVs, y rec , [yrec,1 , yrec,2 , ..., yrec,F ], conditioned
on the transmitted data sequence bP , [b0 , b1 , ..., bP −1 ], where
P is the length of detection window, can be expressed as;
)
f (y (F
|b , h̃) =
rec P

exp

1
2 )F/2
(2πσZ
m

×

F
P
−1
P
−1
X
X
2
−1 X
(0)
(1)
y
−
R
h̃
b
Γ
−
R
h̃
bk Γm,k
rec,m
k m,k
2
2σZm m=1
k=0
k=0
(39)

In the limit as F approaches infinity, the maximumlikelihood estimates of symbols, b̂P , are those that maximize
(F →∞)
|bP ), i.e.,
f (y rec
Z ∞
)
|b , h̃)f (h̃)dh̃
b̂P = arg max lim
f (y (F
rec P
F →∞

0

Z

∞

= arg max lim

bk Γ(0) (t − kT )+
bk Γ(1) (t − kT ) + Z(t),

(0)

bk Γm,k + Rh̃

k=−∞

V. M ULTIPLE -S YMBOL D ETECTION

yrec (t) =Rh̃

∞
X

(0)
where Γm,k
kT ).ϕm (t)i,

bP

The highly scattering nature of UVLC channels causes significant interference between the received symbols, especially
for diffusive link geometries. Such a strong ISI for typical
data rates deteriorates the performance of UVLC systems and
demands intelligent reception algorithms. Therefore, in this
section, we derive the (G)MSD algorithm(s) for SISO UVLC
systems with BPPM signaling to simultaneously detect a block
of consecutive bits and improve the system BER.
Based on Eq. (7), the received time-domain signal can be
expressed as;

(37)

in which {ϕm (t)} is a complete set of orthogonal functions,
and yrec,m is the observable RV obtained by projecting yrec (t)
onto the set {ϕm (t)}, which can be obtained as;

(bd)

+mMIMO ,

yrec,m ϕm (t),

m=1

yrec,m = Rh̃


∞
X

yrec (t) =

bP

F →∞

−∞

)
f (y (F
|b , X)f (X)dX,
rec P

(40)

where X = 0.5 ln(h̃) is the log-amplitude factor of fading
2
. Further simplifications on Eq.
with mean µX and variance σX
(40) results into the following criteria as the MSD algorithm
for the estimation of the transmitted symbols in a SISO UVLC
systems with BPPM signaling;
Z ∞
1
1
b̂P = arg max
exp − 2 (X − µX )2 − 2
2σ
2σ
bP
−∞
X
Zm
!
P
−1
∞
P
−1
X
X
X
2
(0)
(1)
2X
2X
yrec,m −Re
bk Γm,k −Re
bk Γm,k
dX.
m=1

k=0

k=0

(41)
(36)

k=−∞
4 Note that the received background power is proportional to the receiver
aperture area. Since, for the sake of fairness, we have assumed that the sum
of the receiving apertures in MIMO scheme has the same area as the receiver
aperture of SISO scheme, we can conclude that nMIMO
= nSISO
= nb .
b
b
Furthermore, each receiver in MIMO scheme produces a zero mean Gaussian
2 and also a Poisson distributed
distributed thermal noise with variance σth
dark current noise with count rate nd .

One may notice that, due to the integration over the fading coefficient, the MSD algorithm in (41) results into an
intractable form. Here, we propose a low-complexity detection
method based on the generalized multiple-symbol detection
(GMSD) [34]. The GMSD algorithm is a two-step process
which estimates both the transmitted sequence and the fading
coefficient using the observation window of the consecutive
received
symbols.R Based on (39) and the Parseval’s theorem,
P∞
∞
2
2
|Z
m | = −∞ |Z(t)| dt, the GMSD algorithm for the
m=1

!
.

8

PP
−1

ˆ
h̃ =

PP
−1 PP
−1

2Rbk bk0 x0,1 ((k − k 0 )T ) +

bk r0 (kT ) +

k=0
PP
−1 PP
−1

Rbk bk0 x0,0 ((k − k 0 )T ) +

bP

where the GMSD estimation function is obtained as;
P
−1 P
−1
X
X

2Rh̃2 bk bk0 x0,1 ((k − k 0 )T )

−
+
−

Rh̃2 bk bk0 x0,0 ((k − k 0 )T )

k=0 k0 =0
P
−1
X

2h̃bk r0 (kT ) +

k=0
P
−1 P
−1
X
X

P
−1
X

2h̃bk r1 (kT )

k=0

Rh̃2 bk bk0 x1,1 ((k − k 0 )T ),

(43)

k=0 k0 =0

in which r0 (t) = yrec (t)∗Γ(0) (−t), r1 (t) = yrec (t)∗Γ(1) (−t),
x0,0 (t) = Γ(0) (t) ∗ Γ(0) (−t), x1,1 (t) = Γ(1) (t) ∗ Γ(1) (−t), and
x0,1 (t) = Γ(0) (t) ∗ Γ(1) (−t). Moreover, the estimation of the
fading coefficient, used in (42), can be calculated as;
ˆ
h̃ = arg max

G(bP , h̃).

.

(45)

Rbk bk0 x1,1 ((k − k 0 )T )

TABLE I
A BSORPTION , SCATTERING , AND EXTINCTION COEFFICIENTS OF
DIFFERENT WATER TYPES [3].
Water type
Clear ocean
Coastal water
Turbid harbor water

a [m−1 ]
0.114
0.179
0.366

b [m−1 ]
0.037
0.219
1.824

c [m−1 ]
0.151
0.398
2.190

TABLE II
S OME OF THE IMPORTANT PARAMETERS USED FOR THE CHANNEL MC
SIMULATION .

k0 =0

k=0
P
−1 P
−1
X
X

PP
−1 PP
−1

k=0 k0 =0

SISO UVLC systems with BPPM signaling can be expressed
as;
ˆ
b̂P = arg max G(bP , h̃|h̃ = h̃)
(42)

G(bP , h̃) = −

bk r1 (kT )

k=0

k=0 k0 =0

k=0 k0 =0

PP
−1

Coefficient
Laser half divergence angle, θdiv
Laser beam waist radius, Wr
Semi-angle at half power of LED, θ1/2
Source wavelength, λ
Total number of transmitted photons for the
channel MC simulation, Nt
Water refractive index, n
Receiver half angle FOV, θFOV
(MISO)

MISO schemes aperture diameter, D0
Photon weight threshold at the receiver, Wth
Center-to-center separation distance between the
transmitters and between the receiving apertures, l0

Value
0.75 mrad
1 mm
15o
532 nm
108
1.331
40o
20 cm
10−6
25 cm

(44)

h̃

By equating the derivative of G(bP , h̃) in Eq. (43), with respect
to h̃, to zero, we can obtain the estimated value of the fading
coefficient as Eq. (45), in the top of the next page.
It is worth mentioning that for typical bit duration times,
Γ(0) (t) and Γ(1) (t) are temporally spread over a limited
number of bits. Consequently, the summations in Eq. (43)
are in fact defined over a finite number of bits. Therefore,
based on the slow fading nature of UVLC channels [19], [24],
we can consider a constant fading coefficient for all of the
involved consecutive bits in each summation of (43) for typical
values of the bit duration time and detection window length
P . Moreover, the GMSD algorithm which estimates the fading
coefficient as (45) does not require any instantaneous and
statistical channel state information and can be applied when
the channel fading coefficient is modeled using any statistical
distribution rather than lognormal distribution.
VI. N UMERICAL R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
In this section, we present the numerical results and simulations for the performance of various UVLC system configurations in different water types, namely clear ocean, coastal,
and turbid harbor waters with coefficients listed in Table I [3].
Both laser-based collimated and LED-based diffusive links are
considered. Some of the important system parameters used
for the channel MC simulation, including the transmitter and
receiver specifications, are summarized in Table II.

For the channel MC simulation, we have generated Nt =
108 photons at the transmitter side and recorded all attributes
of detectable photons
by circular receivers with aperture diam(MISO) √
eters of D0
/ N , according to the discussed procedure
in Section II-A. To illustrate the behavior of UVLC channels
with various water types and link geometries, we consider a
1 × 3 SIMO configuration. The transmitter is pointed to one
of the receivers, namely the medial one which we name it
as the first receiver. The direct link between the transmitter
and first receiver has FFIR of h0,11 (t). In addition to the
aforementioned direct link, the other two receivers, which are
located at the center-to-center distance of l0 = 25 cm from
the medial aperture, also receive the scattered photons of the
transmitter because of the channel multiple scattering effect on
the propagating photons. Due to the symmetrical geometry,
both of the links from the transmitter to the top and down
receivers have the same FFIR of h0,12 (t). Figs. 2(a)-(f) show
the FFIR of the direct link, h0,11 (t), for various water types
and link geometries, while Figs. 2(g)-(l) depict h0,12 (t) for
the same scenarios. In order to obtain these plots, for each
channel scenario, we have divided the difference of arrival
times of the latest and earliest detected photons into 100 bins.
Then for each bin, we have calculated the sum of the weights
of all detected photons in the corresponding time interval of
that bin and normalized the summation to the total number of
transmitted photons.
Comparing Figs. 2(a)-(c) shows that as the water turbidity

9

−4

Laser−based,
Clear ocean water,
d0= 60 m

2
1
0

2
4
Time [s]

6

−7

x 10

Laser−based,
Coastal water,
d0= 25 m

0.5

0
−5

8

0

−11

x 10

(a)

0.5
2
4
Time [s]

6

1.5

LED−based,
Coastal water,
d0= 15 m

0.5
0
−1

8

0

−10

x 10

Quantized Intensity

Quantized Intensity

Laser−based,
Clear ocean water,
d0= 60 m

0.5
0

2
4
Time [s]

6

8

3

x 10

2

0

x 10

0
−5

LED−based,
Clear ocean water,
d = 30 m
0

0.5
0

2
4
Time [s]

6

8

1.5

5
Time [s]

10

1

10

15
−9

x 10

x 10

Laser−based,
Turbid harbor water,
d0= 10 m

0.5

15

0
−5

0

−10

x 10

5
Time [s]

10

15
−9

x 10

(i)
−8

x 10

LED−based,
Coastal water,
d0= 15 m

1
0.5
0
−1

5
Time [s]

(f )

−6

1

0

x 10

(h)
Quantized Intensity

Quantized Intensity

3

LED−based,
Turbid harbor water,
d0= 10 m

−9

1

−7

15
−9

x 10

−7

−10

x 10

0
−2

2

Laser−based,
Coastal water,
d0= 25 m

0
−5

10

x 10

2

−6

(g)
1.5

1
Time [s]

4

(e)

−7

5
Time [s]

−8

1

x 10

1

0

(c)

x 10

(d)

0
−2

0
−5

x 10

Quantized Intensity

0

Laser−based,
Turbid harbor water,
d0= 10 m

−11

Quantized Intensity

Quantized Intensity

Quantized Intensity

LED−based,
Clear ocean water,
d0= 30 m

1

1.5

15

x 10

1

−6

x 10

0
−2

10

2

(b)

−7

1.5

5
Time [s]

Quantized Intensity

0
−2

1

Quantized Intensity

x 10

Quantized Intensity

Quantized Intensity

−5

3

0

−10

x 10

(j)

1
Time [s]

(k)

2

3
−9

x 10

4

x 10

LED−based,
Turbid harbor water,
d = 10 m
0

2

0
−5

0

5
Time [s]

10

15
−9

x 10

(l)

Fig. 2. FFIR of laser-based collimated and LED-based diffusive UVLC links with different water types, namely clear ocean, coastal, and turbid harbor
waters. (a)-(f) FFIR of the direct link, h0,11 (t); (g)-(l) FFIR of the indirect link, h0,12 (t).

increases the channel delay spread increases too. As it is
obvious from these figures, the FFIR of laser-based clear
ocean channels, even for long ranges as d0 = 60 m, can
properly be modeled by an ideal delta function. On the other
hand, for turbid harbor waters, where the attenuation length
za = cd0 is large, even low-range (e.g., 10 m) laser-based links
significantly spread the received signal in temporal domain.
Moreover, based on the details of the channel MC simulation
[16], [17], each photon may interact with water molecules
and other particles after being propagated ∆s = − 1c ln ζs m,
where ζs is a uniformly distributed RV in the interval [0, 1].
And after each ith interaction the photon weight decreases as
W (i+1) = (1 − ac )W (i) . Therefore, as the channel extinction

coefficient c increases, due to the increased number of interactions, the channel attenuation becomes more severe and
also the channel temporal spread grows because of the higher
attenuation length. All these significantly deteriorate the turbid
harbor channels’ quality such that a 10 m laser-based turbid
harbor link has by far worse channel quality than a 25 m
laser-based coastal link and even a 60 m clear ocean link.
The results of the direct link FFIR in Figs. 2(d)-(f) illustrate
that LED-based transmission increases the channel diffusivity
and therefore the channel loss and temporal dispersion. In
other words, increasing the transmitter divergence angle turns
the transmitted photons away from the direct path and hence,
decreases the probability of these photons to be captured by

10

the receiver leading to higher transmission loss. Moreover, the
transmitted photons with larger zenith angles will probably experience more scattering and interactions with water particles
to reach the receiver. This fact, in addition to increasing the
channel attenuation (due to the photons’ weight reduction),
increases the channel delay spread for diffusive LED-based
links. Therefore, as an example, a 30 m LED-based clear
ocean link has worse channel quality, i.e., higher attenuation
and delay spread, than the laser-based counterpart even with
the double link length. Comparing Figs. 2(a)-(f) shows that
the aforementioned problem is less concerning for LEDbased coastal water links and especially turbid harbor water
links. In other words, when the channel extinction coefficient
or better said the channel attenuation length is large, even
when the propagating photons are transmitted with very small
divergence angles, the large number of interactions of photons
causes them to deviate from the direct path and also reach
the receiver plane with abundant number of scattering and
hence with high transmission time differences, i.e., relatively
a similar behavior to LED-based transmission is observable.
Therefore, as expected, switching from laser to LED-based
transmission does not severely degrade the channel quality for
turbid harbor water links.
Figs. 2(g)-(l) depict the indirect link FFIR, h0,12 (t), for
the same scenarios as Figs. 2(a)-(f). Note that the transmitter
is pointed to the medial receiver and the second receiver
is located in the center-to-center distance of l0 = 25 cm
from the medial one and detects those photons that arrive
with multiple scattering, from the indirect path with FFIR
of h0,12 (t). Therefore, it is expected that h0,12 (t) experience
more attenuation and delay spread than h0,11 (t). Comparing the results in Fig. 2 shows that when the laser-based
transmission is employed in clear ocean or coastal water,
for which the channel attenuation length is relatively small
and the transmitter beam focus approximately endures until
the receiver, the channel spatial beam spread is negligible
and hence, the main energy of the transmitted signal will be
captured by the medial receiver. In such cases, h0,12 (t) has
very poor condition, i.e., higher loss and temporal dispersion,
than h0,11 (t). On the other hand, when either the link or
transmitter is highly diffusive, i.e., when turbid harbor channel
is considered or LED is used at the transmitter, there is no any
considerable difference between h0,11 (t) and h0,12 (t). In other
words, the diffusive nature of the channel spatially spreads
photons in the receiver plane and leads to an approximately
uniform illumination over a larger area than collimated links.
Therefore, the tracking and alignment problems for collimated
laser-based links in clear ocean and coastal waters are by
far more challenging and critical than diffusive LED-based
links and also laser-based links in turbid harbor waters. Hence,
although LED-based transmission increases both the channel
attenuation and temporal dispersion, when a relatively lowspeed mobile underwater optical communication is required,
the diffusive links employment is inevitable to decrease the
tracking and alignment difficulties. Such diffusive links can
potentially be used for low-range mobile applications, e.g.,
between the mobile users and first relay of the proposed
cellular relay-assisted CDMA-based UVLC network in [9]. On

the other hand, when we are interested to a fixed point-to-point
underwater communication, e.g., between the fixed relay nodes
of the mentioned network, it is preferred to employ collimated
laser-based links to increase both the viable communication
range and the transmission data rate.
In order to better portray the channel spatial spread, in Fig.
3 we illustrate the spatial distribution of the illumination over
a 3 × 3 m2 square area of the receiver plane (with center
in (x, y) = (0, 0)) for the discussed six scenarios in Fig.
2. To do so, we divide this area into 40 × 40 pixels, each
with a square area of 7.5 × 7.5 cm2 . Then for each square
pixel, we calculate the normalized intensity over time slots of
T0 = 1 ns, from the time of the first detected photon. The
value of each (i, j)th pixel 
in Figs. 3(a)-(f) is calculated as
P
10 log10
s1 ∈Λ1,ij Ws1 /Nt , where Ws1 is the weight of
the s1 th detected photon, and Λ1,ij specifies the set of all
detected photons within the (i, j)th spatial pixel and the first
T0 seconds time interval. For Figs. 3(g)-(l) we extend the time
window from T0 to 5T0 = 5 ns and repeat the previous six
observations to investigate the effect of integration time on the
spatial illumination pattern.
Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) show that for laser-based clear ocean
and coastal water links, with typical communication ranges,
the beam spatial spread is negligible and the received energy
is mainly confined around the beam center. Although this
behavior improves the channel quality by decreasing both the
channel loss and temporal dispersion, as discussed before,
it increases the tracking and alignment difficulties for such
collimated link geometries. Comparing these figures with Figs.
3(g) and 3(h) confirms that the channel temporal spread is also
negligible for such collimated links. In other words, increasing
the integration time does not considerably change the spatial
pattern and the intensity value of each spatial pixel, i.e., the
main energy of all spatial pixels are accumulated in a small
time interval; within the first T0 seconds.
Figs. 3(c)-(f) demonstrate that for laser-based transmission
in turbid harbor waters and also all LED-based links the
channel considerably spreads the propagating signal in spatial domain, such that the transmitted signal, approximately,
uniformly illuminates a large area of the receiver plane.
As discussed before, such a behavior of diffusive channels,
however deteriorates the link quality by increasing both the
channel loss and delay spread, alleviates the tracking and
alignment troubles and enables such diffusive links to support underwater users’ mobility. For example, an acceptably
uniform energy reception over a 3 × 3 m2 area provides up
to one second continuous communication for a low-speed
underwater user with 3 m/s mobility. Comparing these figures
with Figs. 3(i)-(l) verifies that the aforementioned diffusive
links also significantly spread the received signal in temporal
domain, such that increasing the integration time increases the
normalized intensity of each spatial pixel, i.e., the detected
energy is distributed over much larger time intervals than
T0 = 1 ns. Moreover, the above comparison indicates that
as the integration time increases the illumination uniformity
improves, i.e., the difference between the normalized intensity
of the brightest and darkest pixels decreases. Therefore, it

11

−10
−75

−20
75

−150

150

−75

0
x [cm]

0

−8

−75
−150

y [cm]

y [cm]

−7.5

0

−9
−75

0
x [cm]

75

5

0

4.8
4.4
−75

0
x [cm]

y [cm]

y [cm]

−10
−75

−5
−75

0
x [cm]

−5.5

2.5

10

2

0
−75

1.5

−75

0
x [cm]

75

−150

150

−75

0
x [cm]

−7
−75

−7.5
75

150

−8

75

150

(i)

LED−based, d0=10 m, turbid harbor water

6.4

−6

0

150

75

(h)

−6.5

75

(f)

LED−based, d0=15 m, coastal water

75
y [cm]

y [cm]

−4.5

Laser−based, d0=10 m, turbid harbor water

5

−150

150

75

0
x [cm]

150

0

(g)

−75

−4

0

−20
75

LED−based, d0=30 m, clear ocean

−150

−3.5

0

−150

−75

−15
0
x [cm]

75

75

0
−5

150

15

5

0

75

−75

4.6

Laser−based, d0=25 m, coastal water

10

0
x [cm]

75

5.2

(e)

75

−75

5.6
5.4

(d)
Laser−based, d0=60 m, clear ocean

−150

−75

(c)

−150

150

−3

LED−based, d0=10 m, turbid harbor water
−3

−75

−8.5

−2

(b)

75

−7

−150

150

−6.5
75

0

LED−based, d0=15 m, coastal water

(a)
LED−based, d =30 m, clear ocean

75

−1

−75

0

y [cm]

0
x [cm]

5

6.2
0
6
−75
−150

0.8

75
y [cm]

−75

0
−75

−15

75

10
y [cm]

−5

y [cm]

y [cm]

75

0

0

−150

15

5

75

Laser−based, d0=10 m, turbid harbor water
0

Laser−based, d0=25 m, coastal water

10

y [cm]

Laser−based, d0=60 m, clear ocean

0
x [cm]

(j)

75

0.4

0

0.2
−75

5.8
−75

0.6

−150

150

(k)

0
−75

0
x [cm]

75

150

−0.2

(l)

m2

Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of the illumination over a 3 × 3
square area of the receiver plane (with center in (x, y) = (0, 0)) for the discussed six
scenarios in Fig. 2. (a)-(f) Integration time T0 = 1 ns; (g)-(l) integration time = 5T0 = 5 ns.

is reasonable to transmit with lower data rates through such
diffusive links to decrease the channel loss and ISI, and also
improve the uniformity of the received intensity over larger
areas for mobile applications.
In order to more quantitatively discuss on the channel loss
for various scenarios, we consider a rectangular pulse p(t) with
unit amplitude in the interval [0, Tb ] at the transmitter side,
where Tb is the bit duration time which for OOK modulation
relates to the transmission data rate, Rb , as Tb = 1/Rb . Then
we numerically measure the received energy, after the pulse
propagation through the channel with FFIR of h0,ij (t), over

each kth time slot and normalize it to the transmitted pulse
energy to obtain the channel loss coefficient of the kth time
slot as;
R (k+1)Tb
ρk,ij =

kTb

p(t) ∗ h0,ij (t) dt

R Tb
0

p(t) dt

1
=
Tb

Z

(k+1)Tb

p(t) ∗ h0,ij (t) dt.
kTb

(46)
Furthermore, we have calculated the root mean square (RMS)

12

TABLE III
T HE CHANNEL FIRST 5 LOSS COEFFICIENTS OF BOTH THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT LINKS WITH Tb = 1 ns AS WELL AS RMS DELAY SPREAD FOR
DIFFERENT SCENARIOS . H ERE , THE APERTURE AREA OF EACH RECEIVER IS ASSUMED TO BE 20 cm.
Channel
Condition
ρ0,11
ρ1,11
ρ2,11
ρ3,11
ρ4,11
ρ0,12
ρ1,12
ρ2,12
ρ3,12
ρ4,12
τRMS,11
τRMS,12

Laser-based
d0 = 60 m
clear ocean

Laser-based
d0 = 25 m
coastal water

Laser-based d0 = 10
m
turbid harbor
water

LED-based
d0 = 30 m
clear ocean

LED-based
d0 = 15 m
coastal water

LED-based
d0 = 10 m
turbid harbor water

2.4889 × 10−5
6.3993 × 10−9
3.2052 × 10−10
8.8050 × 10−11
4.8756 × 10−11
2.7642 × 10−7
6.5210 × 10−9
1.8550 × 10−10
3.9447 × 10−11
1.0497 × 10−10
7.4 × 10−5 ns
0.0116 ns

9.8355 × 10−5
3.5116 × 10−7
2.0933 × 10−8
7.0432 × 10−9
3.0451 × 10−9
5.8637 × 10−6
3.8624 × 10−7
2.6422 × 10−8
7.4601 × 10−9
3.4574 × 10−9
5.3 × 10−4 ns
0.0190 ns

4.1449 × 10−7
3.8509 × 10−7
1.5219 × 10−7
7.1750 × 10−8
3.8263 × 10−8
3.6722 × 10−7
4.1149 × 10−7
1.5989 × 10−7
7.1180 × 10−8
3.9987 × 10−8
1.0413 ns
1.1339 ns

2.0403 × 10−7
2.6305 × 10−8
6.1243 × 10−9
4.9795 × 10−9
2.0023 × 10−9
1.9169 × 10−7
2.7404 × 10−8
9.6763 × 10−9
2.7246 × 10−9
1.0912 × 10−9
0.0834 ns
0.2236 ns

2.8139 × 10−6
7.6994 × 10−7
1.5789 × 10−7
5.9260 × 10−8
3.0219 × 10−8
2.7827 × 10−6
7.5837 × 10−7
1.5030 × 10−7
6.7100 × 10−8
2.3123 × 10−8
0.1139 ns
0.1899 ns

2.5818 × 10−7
5.7212 × 10−7
3.6744 × 10−7
2.0638 × 10−7
1.2395 × 10−7
2.4466 × 10−7
5.8861 × 10−7
3.7856 × 10−7
2.0778 × 10−7
1.1873 × 10−7
1.6485 ns
1.5965 ns

TABLE IV
S OME OF THE IMPORTANT PARAMETERS USED FOR THE RECEIVER NOISE
CHARACTERIZATION [5], [29].
Value
0.8
10 nm
0.8
290 K
100 Ω
1.226 × 10−9 A
1440 W/m2

Laser, Harbor, 10 m
Laser, Clear, 60 m

−4

10

Laser, Coastal, 25 m
−6

10

LED, Coastal, 15 m
−8

10

LED, Clear, 30 m

0.0125
90o (horizontal)

−10

10

Analytical
Saddle−Point
Simulations

2.9
−12

10

30 m

delay spread for different channel scenarios using;
vR
u ∞
u
(t − τ0,ij )2 h20,ij (t)dt
τRMS,ij = t −∞ R ∞ 2
,
h (t)dt
−∞ 0,ij
where the mean delay time is given by;
R∞
t.h20,ij (t)dt
.
τ0,ij = R−∞
∞
h2 (t)dt
−∞ 0,ij

LED, Harbor, 10 m

−2

10

Average BER

Coefficient
Quantum efficiency, η
Optical filter bandwidth, 4λ
Optical filter transmissivity, TF
Equivalent temperature, Te
Load resistance, RL
Dark current, Idc
Downwelling irradiance, E
Underwater reflectance of the downwelling
irradiance, Rd
Viewing angle, φv
Describing factor of the directional dependence
of the underwater radiance, Lf ac
Water depth, Dw

0

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Average transmitted power per bit [dBm]

60

70

Fig. 4. Analytical, saddle-point, and simulation results for the exact BER of
2 = 0.16, R = 1 Gbps, and different channel
a SISO UVLC link with σX
b
conditions.

(47)

(48)

Table III shows the first 5 loss coefficients of both the direct
and indirect links with Tb = 1 ns as well as the RMS
delay spread for different channel conditions, which definitely
confirm our previous discussions.
After the above comprehensive channel study, we turn our
attention to the performance of MIMO UVLC systems with
BPPM signaling and EGC. For characterizing the receiver
noise components we assume typical parameter values listed
in Table IV. We further consider the receiver electronic bandwidth as B = 1/T [28]. With respect to these parameters and
the detailed expressions for the characterization of different
noise components in [5] and [29], we found the received
background power at 30 m depth as PBG ≈ 25.57 × 10−9 ×
exp(−30Kd ) W, where Kd is the diffuse attenuation factor [3]
which for different water types ranges from around 0.04 to 4
m−1 [35], and as the water turbidity increases this coefficient

increases too [3]. Therefore, it can easily be justified that the
background noise has a negligible effect on the performance
of our system.
Fig. 4 shows the BER performance of a UVLC link with
2
σX
= 0.16 and Rb = 1 Gbps in different water types for
both LED-based diffusive and laser-based collimated links. As
expected, the system performance considerably degrades for
links with higher water turbidity. For example, because of its
remarkably higher attenuation and scattering, a 10 m laserbased harbor water link has by far worse performance than
a clear ocean link with even six times longer link range. It
is worth to be mentioned that for a 10 m LED-based harbor
water link with 1 Gbps data rate, the interference between the
received symbols is so much that even increasing the transmitted power cannot improve the system performance. Moreover,
an excellent match between the analytical and photon-counting
methods confirms the negligibility of shot noise effect while
the good match with numerical simulations corroborates the
accuracy of our derived analytical expressions.
Fig. 5 illustrates the BER curves for different configurations,
including SISO, 2 × 1 MISO, 3 × 1 MISO, 1 × 2 SIMO,
1 × 3 SIMO, and 2 × 2 MIMO, in a 6 m LED-based harbor

13

0

0

10

10

−2

10

SIMO 1×3

−2

10

SISO

SIMO 1×2
−4

−6

10

Average BER

Average BER

10
SIMO 1×2

MISO 3×1

SIMO 1×3

MIMO 2×2
MISO 2×1

−8

10

−10

10

SISO
10

MIMO 2×2
−10

Analytical
Saddle−Point
Simulations

10

Exact, M×N−dimensional Integration
GHQF, M×N−dimensional Series
Approximated 1−dimensional Integration

−12

15

20

25

30

Average transmitted power per bit [dBm]

10

35

Fig. 5. BER performance of different configurations in a 6 m LED-based
2 = 0.16.
harbor water link with Rb = 100 Mbps and σX
2
= 0.16. As it can
water link with Rb = 100 Mbps and σX
be seen, transmit diversity considerably improves the system
performance, e.g., a 3 × 1 MISO transmission provides about
8 dB performance gain at the BER of 10−9 compared to
SISO scheme. However, receiver diversity configurations have
a slightly lower performance than transmit diversity, mainly
because we have divided the total receiving aperture area by
the number of receivers and also each receiver introduces a
new thermal noise component. In addition, it is evident that
increasing the number of independent branches, i.e., M × N ,
increases the BER curves’ slopes and gives higher diversity
gains. Furthermore, excellent matches between the results
proves the accuracy of our derived analytical and photoncounting BER expressions.
Fig. 6 compares the results obtained from (M × N )dimensional series of Gauss-Hermite quadrature formula
(GHQF) as well as the approximated one-dimensional integral
of Eqs. (20)-(23) with the exact (M ×N )-dimensional integrals
for the BER evaluation of a UVLC system implemented in
a 60 m laser-based clear ocean link with Rb = 5 Gbps
2
and σX
= 0.16. As it is observable, while the approximated
one-dimensional integration slightly overestimates the system
BER, GHQF, using only Vij = 30 points, can accurately
predict the exact BER of the system; this clearly demonstrates
the advantage of GHQF in effective calculation of the system
BER. Moreover, this figure shows that for UVLC channels
with negligible spatial spread, SIMO schemes may even work
worse than SISO transmission. In particular, based on Fig.3(a),
the channel spatial spread for a 60 m clear ocean link is
negligible and hence the other off-axis receivers do not receive
any considerable energy, as it is obvious by comparing Figs.
2(a) and 2(g). Therefore, dividing the total receiving aperture
area by the number of receivers may even decrease the
received energy while each receiver itself adds an independent
thermal noise component. These altogether may lead to a
worse performance than SISO transmission.
The effect of channel delay spread on the performance of
UVLC systems is investigated in Fig. 7. In this figure, the
BER performance of an LED-based SISO UVLC link with

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

Average transmitted power per bit [dBm]

38

40

Fig. 6. Comparison between the results of different methods in predicting
the performance of various configurations established in a 60 m laser-based
2 = 0.16.
clear ocean link with Rb = 5 Gbps and σX
0

Harbor 6 m, 1 Gbps
Harbor 6 m, 500 Mbps
Harbor 6 m,100 Mbps
Harbor 6 m, 20 Mbps
Coastal 15 m, 1 Gbps
Coastal 15 m, 500 Mbps
Coastal 15 m,100 Mbps
Coastal 15 m, 20 Mbps
Simulations

10

−2

10

−4

10

Average BER

10

MISO 2×1

−6

10

−8

−12

10

MISO 3×1

−4

10

−6

10

−8

10

−10

10

−12

10

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Average transmitted power per bit [dBm]

55

60

Fig. 7.
Comparison between the performance results of two different
scenarios, i.e., a 6 m LED-based harbor water link and a 15 m LED-based
2 = 0.16, for different transmission data rates.
coastal water link, both with σX
2
σX
= 0.16 is shown for two different scenarios, i.e., a 6
m harbor water link and a 15 m coastal water link, with
various transmission data rates. As it can be seen, increasing
the transmission data rate significantly deteriorates the system
performance, due to the considerably increased ISI, especially
for channels with larger delay spread. For example, while a 6
m LED-based harbor water link has an excellent performance
for Rb = 100 Mbps, increasing the transmission data rate
to 500 Mbps demands excessively large average transmitted
powers and makes the reliable communication infeasible. This
behavior necessitates effective detection algorithms to improve
the system performance in highly diffusive channels and make
the reliable underwater communication possible for realistic
transmitted powers per bit; the motivation behind the (G)MSD
algorithm(s) derivation in this paper.
In Fig. 8, we target illustrating the beneficial application of
multiple-symbol detection, particularly the GMSD algorithm,
in improving the performance of UVLC systems with high
interference among the received symbols. For this purpose, we

14

to SISO scheme. Also the GMSD algorithm with the detection
window length of P = 2, improved the system BER by 7 dB
in comparison with symbol-by-symbol detection at the BER
of 10−6 .

0

10

SBSD
GMSD, P=2
GMSD, P=4
GMSD, P=10

−1

10

−2

R EFERENCES

Average BER

10

[1] S. Tang, Y. Dong, and X. Zhang, “Impulse response modeling for underwater wireless optical communication links,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 226–234, 2014.
[2] F. Hanson and S. Radic, “High bandwidth underwater optical communication,” Applied optics, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 277–283, 2008.

−3

10

−4

10

−5

10

−6

10

15

20

25

30

35

Average transmitted power per bit [dBm]

40

45

Fig. 8. GMSD algorithm results for the BER of a 10 m laser-based harbor
water link with Rb = 500 Mbps, and different detection window lengths.
2
σX

consider a 10 m laser-based harbor water link with
= 0.04
and Rb = 500 Mbps, and evaluate the performance of GMSD
algorithm for the detection window lengths of P = 2, 4, and
10. More specifically, for each block of consecutive bits, we
first estimate the fading coefficient using Eq. (45), and then
apply this value in Eqs. (42) and (43) to detect the transmitted
bits. As it is shown, using GMSD algorithm instead of
symbol-by-symbol detection (SBSD) provides a remarkable
performance improvement and makes the reliable underwater
communications, for the considered link conditions, possible
with realistic average transmitted powers per bits, which itself
is equivalent to extension of the viable communication range.
In particular, simultaneously detecting just two consecutive
bits, i.e., P = 2, improves the system BER by 7 dB in
comparison with SBSD at the BER of 10−6 .
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we presented a comprehensive study over
the channel characteristics, performance, and effective design
of underwater visible light communications for both collimated laser-based and diffusive LED-based links with proper
consideration of all of the channel degrading effects, including absorption, scattering, and turbulence-induced fading.
We investigated the channel temporal and spatial spread to
better observe its behavior and design our system. In order
to tremendously improve the BER performance of UVLC
systems and therefore increase their viable communication
ranges, we applied MIMO technique to mitigate fading effects
and multiple-symbol detection to alleviate ISI deteriorations.
In addition to closed-form analytical expressions for the
BER of MIMO UVLC systems with BPPM signaling, we
also applied saddle-point approximation, which is based on
photon-counting method, to take into account the shot noise
effects. Excellent matches between our analytical results and
simulations confirmed the accuracy of our derived expressions
throughout the paper. Furthermore, a remarkable performance
observed using both MIMO technique and (G)MSD algorithm(s). In particular, a 3 × 1 MISO transmission provided
about 8 dB performance gain at the BER of 10−9 compared

[3] C. D. Mobley, Light and water: Radiative transfer in natural waters.
Academic press, 1994.
[4] T. J. Petzold, “Volume scattering functions for selected ocean waters,”
SIO Ref. 72-78, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Visibility Laboratory, San Diego, CA, Tech. Rep., Oct. 1972.
[5] S. Jaruwatanadilok, “Underwater wireless optical communication channel modeling and performance evaluation using vector radiative transfer
theory,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1620–1627,
2008.
[6] H. Zhang and Y. Dong, “Impulse response modeling for general underwater wireless optical MIMO links,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 54,
no. 2, pp. 56–61, 2016.
[7] F. Akhoundi, J. A. Salehi, and A. Tashakori, “Cellular underwater wireless optical CDMA network: Performance analysis and implementation
concepts,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 882–891, 2015.
[8] F. Akhoundi, M. V. Jamali, N. Banihassan, H. Beyranvand, A. Minoofar,
and J. A. Salehi, “Cellular underwater wireless optical CDMA network:
Potentials and challenges,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 4254–4268, 2016.
[9] M. V. Jamali, F. Akhoundi, and J. A. Salehi, “Performance characterization of relay-assisted wireless optical CDMA networks in turbulent
underwater channel,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 6, pp.
4104–4116, 2016.
[10] M. V. Jamali, A. Chizari, and J. A. Salehi, “Performance analysis of
multi-hop underwater wireless optical communication systems,” IEEE
Photonics Technology Letters, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 462–465, 2017.
[11] V.V. Nikishov and V.I. Nikishov, “Spectrum of turbulent fluctuations of
the sea-water refraction index,” Int. J. Fluid Mech. Research, vol. 27,
no. 1, pp. 82–98, 2000.
[12] O. Korotkova, N. Farwell, and E. Shchepakina, “Light scintillation in
oceanic turbulence,” Waves in Random and Complex Media, vol. 22,
no. 2, pp. 260–266, 2012.
[13] Y. Ata and Y. Baykal, “Scintillations of optical plane and spherical waves
in underwater turbulence,” JOSA A, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1552–1556, 2014.
[14] H. Gerçekcioğlu, “Bit error rate of focused Gaussian beams in weak
oceanic turbulence,” JOSA A, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1963–1968, 2014.
[15] C. F. Bohren and D. R. Huffman, Absorption and scattering of light by
small particles. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
[16] W. C. Cox Jr, Simulation, modeling, and design of underwater optical
communication systems. North Carolina State University, 2012.
[17] W. Cox and J. Muth, “Simulating channel losses in an underwater optical
communication system,” JOSA A, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 920–934, 2014.
[18] R. A. Leathers, T. V. Downes, C. O. Davis, and C. D. Mobley, “Monte
Carlo radiative transfer simulations for ocean optics: a practical guide,”
DTIC Document, Tech. Rep., 2004.
[19] S. Tang, X. Zhang, and Y. Dong, “Temporal statistics of irradiance in
moving turbulent ocean,” in OCEANS-Bergen, 2013 MTS/IEEE. IEEE,
2013, pp. 1–4.

15

[20] S. M. Navidpour, M. Uysal, and M. Kavehrad, “BER performance
of free-space optical transmission with spatial diversity,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 2813–2819, 2007.
[21] L. C. Andrews, R. L. Phillips, and C. Y. Hopen, Laser beam scintillation
with applications. SPIE press, 2001.
[22] X. Zhu and J. M. Kahn, “Free-space optical communication through
atmospheric turbulence channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 50, no. 8,
pp. 1293–1300, 2002.
[23] M. Karimi and M. Nasiri-Kenari, “BER analysis of cooperative systems
in free-space optical networks,” J. Lightw. Technol., vol. 27, no. 24, pp.
5639–5647, 2009.
[24] M. V. Jamali et al., “Statistical distribution of intensity fluctuations for
underwater wireless optical channels in the presence of air bubbles,” in
4th Iran Workshop on Commun. and Inf. Theory (IWCIT). IEEE, 2016,
pp. 1–6.
[25] X. Yi, Z. Li, and Z. Liu, “Underwater optical communication performance for laser beam propagation through weak oceanic turbulence,”
Applied Optics, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1273–1278, 2015.
[26] E. J. Lee and V. W. Chan, “Part 1: Optical communication over the clear
turbulent atmospheric channel using diversity,” IEEE J. Select Areas
Commun., vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1896–1906, 2004.
[27] M. V. Jamali and J. A. Salehi, “On the BER of multiple-input multipleoutput underwater wireless optical communication systems,” in 4th
International Workshop on Optical Wireless Communications (IWOW).
IEEE, 2015, pp. 26–30.
[28] M. Jazayerifar and J. A. Salehi, “Atmospheric optical CDMA communication systems via optical orthogonal codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 1614–1623, 2006.
[29] J. W. Giles and I. N. Bankman, “Underwater optical communications
systems. part 2: basic design considerations,” in Military Communications Conference, 2005. MILCOM 2005. IEEE. IEEE, 2005, pp. 1700–
1705.
[30] G. Einarsson, Principles of Lightwave Communications. New York:
Wiley, 1996.
[31] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of mathematical functions:
with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. Dover, New York,
1970.
[32] M. V. Jamali, J. A. Salehi, and F. Akhoundi, “Performance studies
of underwater wireless optical communication systems with spatial
diversity: MIMO scheme,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 3, pp.
1176–1192, 2017.
[33] M. Safari and M. Uysal, “Relay-assisted free-space optical communication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 5441–5449,
2008.
[34] N. D. Chatzidiamantis, G. K. Karagiannidis, and M. Uysal, “Generalized
maximum-likelihood sequence detection for photon-counting free space
optical systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 3381–3385,
2010.
[35] Z.-P. Lee, M. Darecki, K. L. Carder, C. O. Davis, D. Stramski, and
W. J. Rhea, “Diffuse attenuation coefficient of downwelling irradiance:
An evaluation of remote sensing methods,” Journal of Geophysical
Research: Oceans, vol. 110, no. C2, 2005.

