1

To Relay or not to Relay: Open Distance and
Optimal Deployment for Linear Underwater
Acoustic Networks

arXiv:1801.03641v1 [cs.IT] 11 Jan 2018

Yuzhou Li, Member, IEEE, Yu Zhang, Hongkuan Zhou, and Tao Jiang, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—Existing works have widely studied relay-aided
underwater acoustic networks under some specialized relay
distributions, e.g., equidistant and rectangular-grid. In this paper,
we investigate two fundamental problems that under which
conditions a relay should be deployed and where to deploy it if
necessary in terms of the energy and delay performance in linear
underwater acoustic networks. To address these two problems, we
first accurately approximate the complicated effective bandwidth
and transmit power in the logarithm domain to formulate an
energy minimization problem. By analyzing the formulation, we
discover a critical transmission distance, defined as open distance,
and explicitly show that a relay should not be deployed if the
transmission distance is less than the open distance and should be
otherwise. Most importantly, we derive a closed-form and easy-tocalculate expression for the open distance and also strictly prove
that the optimal placing position is at the middle point of the link
when a relay should be introduced. Moreover, although this paper
considers a linear two-hop relay network as the first step, our
derived results can be applied to construct energy-efficient and
delay-friendly multi-hop networks. Simulation results validate
our theoretical analysis and show that properly introducing a
relay can dramatically reduce the network energy consumption
almost without increasing the end-to-end delay.
Index Terms—Underwater acoustic communications, relay deployment, energy efficiency, end-to-end delay.

I. I NTRODUCTION
As the only effective means for long-range data delivering in extremely hostile undersea environments, acoustic
communications have been widely used in various underwater devices and scenarios. However, it is well-known that
acoustic channels are quite bandwidth-limited and underwater acoustic transmission is usually energy-expensive, especially in long-range transmission cases [1], [2]. To meet
the ever-increasingly high-data-rate and energy-efficient (and
thus lifetime-enhanced) demands imposed by real-time or
long-term marine applications such as marine rescues and
monitoring, a potential solution is to introduce relays between
transmitters and receivers to construct multi-hop networks.
This is because deploying relays to shorten hop distance
can expand the effective bandwidth and reduce the transmit
power of each hop [3]–[5]. Nevertheless, relay deployment
This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation of
China with Grants 61601192, 61601193, 61729101, and 61631015, the Major
Program of National Natural Science Foundation of Hubei in China with
Grant 2016CFA009, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities with Grant 2016YXMS298.
The authors are with the School of Electronic Information and Communications, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, P. R.
China (e-mail: {yuzhouli, yu_zhang, hongkuanzhou, taojiang}@hust.edu.cn).

is a double-edged sword, although having the aforementioned
benefits, it may in turn degrade the network performance as
the deployed relays will spend extra time on packet forwarding
and consume additional energy to receive data [6]–[9]. It is
thus important to understand how relay deployment affects
the performance of underwater acoustic networks and how to
quantify these impacts.
There have been extensive works to investigate relay deployment problems in underwater acoustic networks from different
perspectives, e.g., optimizing the relay number [5], [10]–[12]
and determining the best relay position [13]–[16]. In [12],
Pompili et al. studied the problem of how many sensors at least
are required to achieve the optimal sensing and communication
coverage in two- and three-dimensional underwater acoustic
sensor networks. By minimizing an elaborated cost function,
analytical solutions for the optimal number of relays were
derived in [5], [10], [11] to evaluate the tradeoffs involved
in the design of a linear relay acoustic link. In [13], Cao et
al. obtained that the relay location is a much more critical
factor with respect to the system capacity than power allocation from simulation results. Leveraging an optimal perhop distance from numerical observations, Zorzi et al. [14]
developed a relay selection routing algorithm to minimize
the system’s total energy consumption. Routing scheme and
relay replacement were jointly optimized in [15] to improve
the energy efficiency of underwater acoustic sensors networks
for a given rectangular-grid node distribution. Further, Kam et
al. [16] considered a random node distribution scenario and
proved that equal spacing from the source to the destination
is optimal when using a defined globally optimal frequency.
To summarize, [5], [10]–[15] investigated relay-related performance under some specialized relay distributions, e.g.,
equidistant and rectangular-grid, but there are not analyses
or proofs as to why such distribution is optimal. Although
[16] strictly proved that equidistant spacing is optimal for
energy efficiency in randomly-placed relay networks, its results hold only for narrow-band signals with bandwidth of 0.1
kHz. Besides, a deceptively-simple but fundamental problem,
whether it is necessary to deploy relays in underwater acoustic
transmission, still remains unsolved and few works have
discussed this problem to the best of our knowledge. If the
answer is necessary, a concomitant fundamental problem is
what is the optimal relay deployment, e.g., equidistant in [10]–
[14], in terms of the selected performance indexes. In view
of these, this paper devotes to quantitatively addressing these
two fundamental problems, namely under which conditions

2

relays should be deployed and where to deploy them if
necessary. Assuming that each hop delivers data over its full
effective bandwidth, we answer them in terms of the energy
consumption and end-to-end delay by considering direct and
linear two-hop relay transmission scenarios as the first step.
By analyzing our formulated energy minimization problem,
we theoretically derive a critical transmission distance with a
closed-form expression, defined as the open distance in this
paper, which provides an extremely simple way to fast judge
whether to deploy a relay. In the case when a relay is needed,
we further obtain the optimal relay placing position.
The main contributions of this work are as follows:
• We first accurately approximate the very complicated
effective bandwidth and transmit power in the logarithm
domain to formulate an energy minimization problem,
instead of adopting traditionally numerical evaluation
approaches (by which quantitative results can hardly be
derived), for comparing the energy consumption and
delay performance between direct and linear two-hop
relay transmission schemes.
• Based on the formulation, we discover that there exists
a critical transmission distance, defined as open distance,
which provides an extremely simple method to decide
whether a relay should be deployed. Specifically, a relay
should not be deployed when the transmission distance
is less than the open distance and should be otherwise.
• Most importantly, we leverage the differential analysis to
derive a closed-form and easy-to-calculate expression for
the open distance and also strictly prove that the optimal
placing position is at the middle point of the link when
a relay should be introduced.
• Although this paper considers a linear two-hop relay
network as the first step, our derived results provide significant guidelines for constructing energy-efficient and
delay-friendly multi-hop networks. Specifically, relays are
needed to be deployed at the midpoint of each hop for
saving energy and maintaining the end-to-end delay until
the length between any two adjacent nodes does not
exceed the open distance.
• Extensive simulation results validate our theoretical analysis and show that properly introducing a relay can dramatically reduce the network energy consumption (up to
71.77%) almost without increasing the end-to-end delay
(less than 1.56%). Furthermore, we apply a polynomial
fitting method to derive another precise expression for the
open distance through least-squares approximation based
on the sufficient realistic data for potential applications.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section II, we overview the basic knowledge about underwater
acoustic channels. In Section III, we introduce system scenarios, formulate the concerned problem, and present quantitative
results. Section IV provides the solution proof and analysis
and extensive simulation results are presented in Section V.
Finally, we conclude our paper in Section VI.
II. E FFECTIVE BANDWIDTH AND T RANSMIT P OWER
In this section, we first introduce the path loss and the
ambient noise of an underwater acoustic channel, based on

which we obtain the effective bandwidth and required transmit power for a given signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). We then
precisely approximate them for more easily characterizing the
bandwidth-range and power-range dependent features of the
underwater acoustic channel.
A. Path Loss
According to [17], path loss of an underwater acoustic
channel over a distance l in km for a signal at frequency f
in kHz, denoted by dimensionless A(l, f ), can be modeled in
dB form as
10 log10 A(l, f ) = k · 10 log10 (l · 103 ) + l · 10 log10 a(f ) (1)
where k is the spreading factor that defines the geometry of
the acoustic propagation, commonly k = 1 for cylindrical
spreading, k = 2 for spherical spreading, and k = 1.5 for
practical spreading. In addition, 10 log10 a(f ) represents the
absorption coefficient in dB/km, which, from [18], is expressed
by the Thorp’s formula as
10 log10 a(f ) =

44f 2
2.75f 2
0.11f 2
+
+
+ 0.003. (2)
2
2
1+f
4100 + f
104

In (1), the first term on the right side denotes the spreading
attenuation that increases with the distance l, and the second
term represents the absorption loss related to both the distance
l and frequency f . As a result, path loss of an underwater
acoustic channel is not only dependent on the transmission
distance, but also on the signal frequency. This feature distinguishes underwater acoustic from terrestrial radio transmission
as the radio suffers negligible absorption loss in the air.
B. Ambient Noise
Ambient noise exists all the time in the ocean, mainly including four parts of turbulence, shipping, waves, and thermal
noise and usually showing Gaussian characteristics. From [18],
empirically continuous power spectral density (p.s.d.) models
of these four parts in µ Pa per Hz at a signal frequency
f in kHz, denoted by Nt (f ), Ns (f ), Nw (f ), and Nth (f ),
respectively, are given by
10 log10 Nt (f ) = 17 − 30 log10 f
10 log10 Ns (f ) = 40 + 20(s − 0.5) + 26 log10 f −
60 log10 (f + 0.03)
10 log10 Nw (f ) = 50 + 7.5w1/2 + 20 log10 f −

(3)

40 log10 (f + 0.4)
10 log10 Nth (f ) = − 15 + 20 log10 f
where s is the shipping activity factor between 0 for low
activity and 1 for high activity, and w is the wind speed in the
unit of m/s.
Adding the four components in (3) together, we get the
p.s.d. of the overall ambient noise of the system in µ Pa per
Hz as
N (f ) = Nt (f ) + Ns (f ) + Nw (f ) + Nth (f ).

(4)

3

-70

200

-80

-100

Power (dB re µ Pa)

10log 10 {1/[(A(l,f)N(f)]} (dB)

-90

-110
-120
-130
-140

150

SNR =0dB, numerical values
0

SNR =10dB, numerical values
0

SNR =20dB, numerical values

100

0

l=5km
l=10km
l=50km
l=100km

-150
-160

SNR =0dB, approximation curve
0

SNR =10dB, approximation curve
0

SNR =20dB, approximation curve
0

-170

50
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0

10

20

30

40

Frequency (kHz)

Fig. 1. Frequency-dependent feature of the narrow-band SNR for different
transmission distances, denoted by 10 log10 {1/[(A(l, f )N (f )]} in dB form.
In this figure, moderate shipping activity (s = 0.5) and no wind (w = 0) are
applied in the noise p.s.d. (4), and practical spreading (k = 1.5) is used for
the path loss model (1).

(a)

log 10 (ω)

2
1
0
20

30

40

0

-4

10

2.3

0.6

2.2

γ

λ

0.7

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fig. 2. Comparison of the effective bandwidth between approximate results
from (8) and numerical values, where λ = 0.5392 and ω = 101.4291 .

Numerical results1 in [3] show that the turbulence noise
produces influences only in the frequency region of f < 10
Hz, the noise from distant shipping and wind-driven waves
becomes dominant when f lies in 10 Hz–100 Hz and 100
Hz–100 kHz, respectively, and the thermal noise holds the
major proportion when f > 100 kHz.
C. Effective Bandwidth and Transmit Power
Using the path loss model (1) and ambient noise model (3),
the narrow-band SNR, which is a dimensionless measure, is
given by
SNR(l, f ) =

Sl (f )
Sl (f )∆f /A(l, f )
=
N (f )∆f
A(l, f )N (f )

(5)

1 Throughout this paper, numerical results or numerical values are obtained
by directly using (1)–(7) without any simplification or approximation.

50

40

50

2
20

30

SNR0 (dB)

Distance (km)

40

2.1

10
40

30

(d)

2.4

0.4
30

20

SNR0 (dB)

0.5

20

100

-2

50

(c)

0.8

10

90

(b)

SNR0 (dB)

1

0

80

-6
10

10 0

70

2

log 10 (ψ)

3

Approximation curve
Numerical values

10

60

Fig. 3. Comparison of the required transmit power under different target
SNRs, between approximate results from (9) and numerical values, where
γ = 2.2074 for all target SNRs and ψ = 100.1SNR0 −4.9040 .

10 2

Bandwidth (kHz)

50

Distance (km)

40

50

10

20

30

SNR0 (dB)

Fig. 4. Model parameters vs. target SNRs. (a) log10 (ω) vs. SNR0 . (b)
log10 (ψ) vs. SNR0 . In this subfigure, the curve can be further approximated
as a line with a slope of 0.1000 and a vertical intersection of −4.9040.
(c) λ vs. SNR0 . (d) γ vs. SNR0 . For all the subfigures, moderate shipping
activity (s = 0.5) and no wind (w = 0) are applied in the noise p.s.d. (4),
and practical spreading (k = 1.5) is used for the path loss model (1).

where Sl (f ) is the p.s.d. of the transmit signal and ∆f is a
narrow frequency band around f [3], [5]. The denominator
A(l, f )N (f ), illustrated in Fig. 1, determines the frequencydependent feature of the narrow-band SNR. From Fig. 1, there
exists an optimal frequency f0 (l) for a given transmission
distance l, where 1/[(A(l, f )N (f )] (and thus SNR(l, f ) for
a given Sl (f )) reaches its maximum. Around the maximum
of 1/[(A(l, f )N (f )], we adopt the 3-dB bandwidth as the effective bandwidth of the transmission denoted by B3 (l), which
is the frequency range that satisfies {1/[A(l, f )N (f )]} >
{1/[2A(l, f0(l))N (f0 (l))]}. Suppose the transmitter works on
the whole 3-dB bandwidth, then the overall SNR at the receiver

4

is given by

Tx

SNR(l, B3 (l)) =

R

−1

Sl (f )A

B3 (l)

R

B3 (l)

(l, f )df

N (f )df

(6)
BPSK

where B(l) in kHz is the size of frequency range B3 (l).
From the numerical evaluations of [3] and [5], both the
effective bandwidth B(l) and the required transmit power
Pt (l) can be precisely approximated as functions of the
transmission distance l for a given SNR as follows
Pt (l) = δlγ

(8)

where the units of B(l), Pt (l), and l are kHz, µ Pa, and km,
respectively. Furthermore, from [17], the conversion of the
transmit power Pt (l) in µ Pa to its corresponding electrical
power PT (l) in Watt is given by
PT (l) = Pt (l) · (10−17.2 /η) = ψ · lγ

(9)

where 10−17.2 is the conversion factor and η denotes the
overall efficiency of the power amplifier and transducer. In
(8) and (9), all the model parameters, including the scaling
factors ω and ψ as well as the exponential coefficients λ and
γ, are positive values and can be readily obtained by firstorder least-squares polynomial approximation on a logarithmic
scale. Following this principle, we fit B(l) and PT (l) under
different target SNRs in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively, from
which excellent matches can be reached by (8) and (9).
To further evaluate how the model parameters depend on
the target SNR and determine their values, we apply the same
approximation method for all those target SNRs of interests
and plot their variation tendency with the target SNRs in Fig. 4.
From Fig. 4, except that ψ increases linearly as the target
SNR grows, the other parameters are all invariant to the target
SNRs. More specifically, the numerical scales of ω, ψ, λ, and
γ, denoted by sets Ω, Ψ, Λ, and Γ, respectively, lie in the
following regions
Ω:ω>0
Ψ : ψ = 100.1SNR0 −4.9040
Λ : 0.5 < λ < 0.6

l km

0 km

.

Assume that the power of the transmit signal, denoted by Pt (l)
in µ Pa, is equally distributed over the 3-dB bandwidth, the
required transmit power to satisfy a target SNR SNR0 at a
distance l in km is given by
R
N (f )df
B (l)
3
Pt (l) = 10 · B(l)SNR0 R 3 −1
(7)
A (l, f )df
B3 (l)

B(l) = ωl−λ

Rx

(10)

Γ : 2.1 < γ < 2.3.
Eq. (10) is important to solve the optimization problem (16)
and will be used throughout the entire derivation process in
Section IV to identify the sign of some important expressions.
At this point, we have reviewed the channel properties of
underwater acoustic propagation including the path loss and
the ambient noise. From Figs. 1, 2, and 3, we can further obtain
the following two important features regarding the underwater
acoustic channels:

˄a˅

0010101010

Tx
0 km

Relay

Rx

x km

l km

˄b˅

Fig. 5. System scenario. (a) Direct acoustic transmission from the Tx to the
Rx. (b) Linear Two-hop relay acoustic transmission with one relay located at
x km on the line between the Tx and the Rx.

Bandwidth-range dependent feature. As shown in
Fig. 2, the effective bandwidth of underwater acoustic
channels decreases exponentially when the transmission
distance grows. For example, the effective bandwidth can
reach dozens of kHz when the transmission distance is
1 km, while it becomes less than 10 kHz if the distance
exceeds 10 km.
• Power-range dependent feature. Opposite to the bandwidth, the required transmit power of an underwater
acoustic channel to satisfy a given SNR increases exponentially when the transmission distance grows, as
depicted in Fig. 3. For instance, when communicating
with a target 1 km away at the SNR0 of 20 dB, the
required transmit power is less than 1 W, but it surges to
about 100 W when the distance is 100 km.
These facts, i.e., the bandwidth-range and power-range
dependent features of underwater acoustic channels, imply that
the transmission performance possibly can be improved by
deploying relays along an underwater acoustic link. This is
because deploying relays can significantly expand the effective
bandwidth and reduce the transmit power through shortening
hop distance (see Figs. 2 and 3), and thus may increase the
data rate and decrease the network energy consumption in the
meantime. However, relay deployment in turn may degrade the
network performance as relays will spend extra time on packet
forwarding and consume additional energy to receive data. It
is thus important to understand under which conditions relays
should be introduced and where they are deployed if necessary,
which will be quantitatively discussed in Section III.
•

III. S YSTEM S CENARIOS , P ROBLEM F ORMULATION ,
Q UANTITATIVE R ESULTS

AND

In this section, we introduce the considered system scenarios
and involved parameters, formulate an energy minimization
problem to address the above two fundamental problems, and
present quantitative results to answer them.
A. Description of Linear Underwater Acoustic Networks
Consider an underwater acoustic link, as shown in Fig. 5(a),
where a packet of L bits needs to be delivered from the
source to the destination, denoted by Tx and Rx and located
at the origin and the position l km (l > 0) away on the

5

axis, respectively. In this scenario, we investigate under which
conditions a relay should be deployed on the line between the
Tx and the Rx and where it should be deployed (i.e., determine
the value of x, see Fig. 5(b)) in terms of the overall energy
consumption and the end-to-end delay2 . We refer this kind of
architectures as linear underwater acoustic networks, namely
either the Tx, the relay, or the Rx is on a straight line.
Specifically, the end-to-end delay is defined as the sum of
the duration (i.e., consumed time) of radiating amount of bits
from the buffer and that of propagating over a distance [19],
[20]. Unlike terrestrial radio traveling at the speed of light,
sound propagates underwater at a very low speed of about
1500 m/s. As a result, the end-to-end delay of underwater
acoustic communications is dominated by the propagating
delay, another feature that distinguishes underwater acoustic
from terrestrial radio transmission. In the case of the direct
transmission (See Fig. 5(a)), the end-to-end delay to deliver a
packet of L bits for a given SNR over a distance of l km can
be calculated as

t0 (l) = tRadiate + tPropagate =

l
L
+
αB(l) c

(11)

E0 (l) = ETransmit + EReceive
L
L
1
+ PR
= PT (l)
αB(l)
αB(l)
 λ+γ

2 L
=
· ψl
+ PR lλ .
αω

(12)

1

where = is obtained by substituting (8) and (9) into =, and
PR is a distance-independent constant parameter to denote the
receiver power [21].
In the case of two-hop relay transmission (see Fig. 5(b)),
the end-to-end delay and the overall energy consumption over
the two-hop path can be computed by adding those incurred
by the two individual hops. Specifically, the end-to-end delay
is given by

t1 (l) = t0 (x) + t0 (l − x) =

E1 (x) = E0 (x) + E0 (l − x)
L[PT (x) + PR ] L[PT (l − x) + PR ]
=
+
αB(x)
αB(l − x)


L
· ψxλ+γ + PR xλ + ψ(l − x)λ+γ + PR (l − x)λ .
=
αω
(14)
From (14), we can obtain the following interesting properties with respect to E1 (x), which are totally in accordance
with our intuitional understanding.
•

•

•

Positivity: E1 (x) > 0 holds for all x ∈ (0, l). This
directly follows the fact that delivering data implies
energy consumption.
Symmetry: E1 (x) is symmetric with respect to x = l/2
as E1 (x) = E1 (l − x), ∀x ∈ (0, l). It thus suffices to
consider half of the total distance when investigating the
relay-related performance.
Inclusivity: Direct transmission can be seen as a special
case of two-hop relay transmission by locating the relay
at the source or the destination4, because

L
l
L
+
+ (13)
αB(x) αB(l − x) c

2 It is worthwhile to note that the analytical results for single-relay deployment problems are also significant for determining the best deploying
schemes in multiple-relay cases, which are extremely complicated and remains
unsolved at present. In particular, Section III-D will discuss how to apply our
derived results to construct energy-efficient multi-hop networks.

L  λ+γ
ψl
+ PR lλ
αω
x→l
= E1 (0) = E1 (l) = E0 (l).
(15)

lim+ E1 (x) = lim− E1 (x) =

x→0

where c is the acoustic speed, about 1500 m/s, and α is the
bandwidth efficiency of the modulation in bps/Hz (e.g., α = 1
bps/Hz for BPSK and α = 2 bps/Hz for QPSK). Accordingly,
the overall energy consumption in Joule, defined as the sum
of the transmit and receive energy, is modeled as

2

and the overall energy consumption is3

B. Problem Formulation
From (11) and (12), t0 (l) and E0 (l) can be easily calculated.
To determine which kind of transmission (direct or two-hop
relay) is the best, it is thus needed to know the minimum
energy consumption and end-to-end delay of the two-hop
relay transmission. Regarding the delay performance, we will
discuss it by simulation results in Section V. From the energy
consumption perspective, mathematically, the following two
questions are required to be quantitatively answered.
1) Question 1: When should a relay be introduced? A
relay should not be deployed if E0 (l) ≤ E1 (x) for all
x ∈ (0, l). Otherwise, there at least exists an x′ ∈ (0, l)
such that E0 (l) > E1 (x′ ). In other words, a proper relay
deployment will consume less energy than the direct
transmission.
2) Question 2: Where should a relay be deployed if
necessary? A relay should be deployed at the position
x0 where the energy cost reaches its minimum, i.e.,
E1 (x0 ) = minx E1 (x) or x0 = arg minx E1 (x).
Hence, we need to find out the minimum value of E1 (x)
and compare it with E0 (l) to decide whether a relay is
3 Eq. (13) and Eq. (14) indicate that the transmission bandwidth and the
transmit power can be adjusted arbitrarily according to the transmission
distance. This may be infeasible in practice but the corresponding analysis
is theoretically significant as it can provide a performance bound to what can
be achieved and thus has been widely adopted in existing works, e.g., in [5],
[10]–[15].
4 Note that the n-order derivatives of E (x) may be meaningless at x = 0
1
and x = l. For rigorous utilization of the differential analysis in Section IV,
+
−
we also use x = 0 and x = l to equivalently represent the locations at
the source and the destination, respectively.

Open distance (km)

6

Observe (17), lOP is affected by three factors: devices’
restrictions on the receive power PR , reliable transmission
requirements on the target SNR reflected by ψ, and underwater
acoustic channels reflected by λ and γ. Figs. 6(a) and 6(b)
further intuitively show how these factors affect lOP .

(a)

100

PR = 0.5 W
PR = 1.0 W
50

PR = 1.5 W

0
5

10

15

20

25

30

Open distance (km)

SNR (dB)
(b)

40
SNR 0 = 15 dB
SNR 0 = 20 dB

30

SNR 0 = 25 dB

20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Receive power (Watt)

Fig. 6. (a) Open distance vs. target SNRs for given receive powers. (b)
Open distance vs. receive power for given target SNRs. In the figure, we set
λ = 0.5392 and γ = 2.2074.

necessary, which can be obtained by solving the following
energy minimization problem
min E1 (x)
x

s.t. C1: 0 ≤ x ≤ l

(16)

In (16), all involved parameters are in their individual ranges.
Specifically, γ, ω, λ, and ψ used in the fitting models of
bandwidth B(l) and transmit power PT (l) (see (8) and (9)) are
determined by (10), the receive power PR > 0, the bandwidth
efficiency α > 0, and the packet size L ∈ N+ .
C. Open Distance
To quantify the optimal solution of the problem (16), we
first define a concept of open distance.
Definition 1. An open distance, denoted by lOP , determines
a largest transmission distance between the Tx and the Rx,
below which E0 (l) ≤ E1 (x) for all x ∈ (0, l), otherwise there
at least exists an x′ ∈ (0, l) such that E0 (l) > E1 (x′ ).
From the definition, the direct transmission is the optimal
when l ≤ lOP while the two-hop relay transmission becomes
the best (i.e., a relay should be deployed) when l > lOP . As
a consequence, the problem becomes how to calculate lOP
and find the optimal position x0 among all x′ that achieves
minx E1 (x), which are quantified by the following theorem,
proved in Section IV.
Theorem 1. For each combination of the receive power PR
and target SNR, there exists an open distance lOP , given by
s
)
(s
PR λ(1 − λ)
PR (2 − 2λ )
γ
γ
.
lOP = max 2
,
ψ(λ + γ)(λ + γ − 1)
ψ(2λ − 21−γ )
(17)
That is, E1 (x) achieves its minimum at x = 0+ or x = l−
if l ≤ lOP . Furthermore, x0 = 2l is the optimal deploying
position if l > lOP , i.e., E1 2l = minx E1 (x).

Remark 1. From (17) and Fig. 6, two important properties
regarding the open distance can be obtained, both of which
are totally in accordance with our intuition and will be further
verified by simulation results in Section V. First, lOP increases
as PR grows for a given target SNR. This is because a larger
PR implies that more energy cost is needed to deploy a relay,
which can be canceled by the exponentially increased transmit
power and decreased bandwidth (see Figs. 2 and 3) only when
the transmission range becomes longer. Second, lOP decreases
as the target SNR increases for a given PR , following the fact
that transmit power should be increased to satisfy a larger
target SNR, but it can be offset by shortening the distance.
Further checking Fig. 6 and (17), we can find that lOP
is linearly dependent on PR and SNR0 on the logarithm
scale. Specifically, through a power operation and a logarithm
operation on (17), it can be equivalently recast to
γ log10 lOP = log10 PR + 0.1SNR0 + c

(18)

2γ ηλ(1 − λ)
(λ + γ)(λ + γ − 1)10−4.9528

(19)

where
c = log10
if lOP =

q
γ

PR λ(1−λ)
ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)

c = log10

or

η(2 − 2λ )
(2λ − 21−γ )10−4.9528

(20)

q
PR (2−2λ )
if lOP = γ ψ(2
λ −21−γ ) . From (18), log10 lOP is a linear
function with respect to both log10 PR and SNR0 . This implies
that lOP (PR , SNR0 ) can be approximated through polynomial fittings by collecting sufficient points (log10 PR , SNR0 ,
log10 lOP ), which will be verified in Section V-C.
D. Summary: Direct or Relayed?
Jointly considering Theorem 1 and Eq. (15), we have
(
E1 (0+ ) = E1 (l− ) = E0 (l), when l ≤ lOP
min E1 (x) =
x
E1 (l/2), when l > lOP
(21)
where lOP is given by (17). Eq. (21) quantitatively answers the
two questions proposed in Section III-B. More clearly,
• A relay should not be introduced when l ≤ lOP , i.e., direct
transmission is the best.
• A relay should be introduced when l > lOP (i.e., two-hop
relay transmission is the optimal) and its optimal placing
position is the midpoint between the Rx and Tx.
• After a relay is deployed at the midpoint, another question
that arises is whether more relays are needed to further cut
down the energy expenditure, which can be easily decided
utilizing Theorem 1. Specifically, two another relays need
to be deployed at the quarter points if l/2 > lOP and four

7

more additional relays are further needed at the eighth
points if l/4 > lOP . This process is terminated until the
transmission distance of each hop is less than lOP .
IV. S OLUTION P ROOF

AND

dE1 ( x)
dx

E1 ( x)

A NALYSIS

In this section, we strictly elaborate how Theorem 1 is
obtained, where the differential analysis is adopted. We first
show the bounded and continuous features of E1 (x), which
is the pre-condition of using the differential analysis. We then
dE 3 (x) dE 2 (x)
1 (x)
derive the sign of dx1 3 , dx1 2 , and dEdx
to obtain the
rough figure of E1 (x), based on which the locally extreme
and globally optimal points are found.
A. Preliminary
In the paper, we adopt the differential analysis to find the
global minimum of E1 (x). Since not all functions are suitable
for differential analysis, we first present the following lemma,
which directly follows the fact that E1 (x) is a linear combination of several power functions, to support the utilization of
this theory.
Lemma 1. In the definition field x ∈ (0, l), E1 (x) is a
bounded and continuous function with respect to x and its
n-order (n ∈ N+ ) derivatives make sense.
Lemma 1 indicates that we can decide the global minimum
of E1 (x) by first finding out all its extreme points based on the
differential analysis and then comparing their objective values
with those achieved by the boundary points (i.e., x = 0+
and x = l− ). The following lemma further shows the sign of
the second derivative of E1 (x), which facilitates us to judge
1 (x)
= 0) is an extreme
whether a stationary point (where dEdx
point or not and will be used in the next two subsections.
Lemma 2. The second derivative of E1 (x) with respect to x
for x ∈ (0, l) satisfies the following inequality

dE12 (x)
2L
≤
(l/2)λ−2 ψ(λ + γ)(λ + γ − 1)(l/2)γ
2
(22)
dx
αω

− PR λ(1 − λ) , ∀x ∈ (0, l).

Proof: From (14), the first derivative of E1 with respect
to x is given by


dE1 (x)
L n
=
ψ(λ + γ) xλ+γ−1 − (l − x)λ+γ−1 +
dx
αω
o

PR λ xλ−1 − (l − x)λ−1 , x ∈ (0, l).
(23)
∗
Initial purpose is to find some x∗ that satisfies dE1dx(x ) =
0. However, it is hard to judge whether (23) is positive or
negative. Nevertheless, we can still ensure the values of some
key points
dE1 (x)
→∞
dx x=0+
dE1 (x)
→ −∞
(24)
dx x=l−
dE1 (x)
= 0.
dx x=l/2

x

0

l

l/2

x

0

l/2

˄a˅

l

˄b˅

Fig. 7. Illustration of the variation trend of
dE1 (x)
vs. x. (b) E1 (x) vs. x.
dx

dE1 (x)
dx

and E1 with x. (a)

Furthermore, we calculate the second derivative of E1 with
respect to x in x ∈ (0, l)


dE12 (x)
L n
− PR λ(1 − λ) xλ−2 + (l − x)λ−2
=
2
dx
αω

 o (25)
+ ψ(λ + γ)(λ + γ − 1) xλ+γ−2 + (l − x)λ+γ−2 .

Since λ + γ − 2 ∈ (0, 1) and λ − 2 ∈ (−2, −1) from (10),
xλ+γ−2 and xλ−2 are thus a concave function and a convex
function, respectively, when x ∈ (0, l). As a consequence,
we can apply the Jensen’s inequality to obtain the following
inequalities
xλ+γ−2 + (l − x)λ+γ−2 ≤ 2 · (l/2)λ+γ−2
xλ−2 + (l − x)λ−2 ≥ 2 · (l/2)λ−2 .

(26)

Substituting (26) into (25), we can shrink the range of the
second derivative to obtain (22).

2L
(l/2)λ−2 ψ(λ +
For notational simplicity, we set D = αω
γ)(λ + γ − 1)(l/2)γ − PR λ(1 − λ) . From Lemma 2, the sign
dE 2 (x)
of dx1 2 depends on two cases of the positivity or negativity
of D, which affects the optimal solution of E1 (x). The next
two subsections discuss how to identify the extreme points of
E1 (x) in each of these two cases, respectively.
B. Case 1: D ≤ 0
dE 2 (x)

In this case, dx1 2 ≤ 0 holds for all x ∈ (0, l) from (22).
Based on this fact, we can prove that a stationary point of
E1 (x) is the globally maximum point and the solution of (16)
is reached at the two boundary points 0+ or l− . The following
theorem quantifies these results.
Theorem 2. E1 (x)qgets its global minimum at x = 0+ or at
PR λ(1−λ)
.
x = l− when l ≤ 2γ ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
q
PR λ(1−λ)
yields
Proof: Rearranging l ≤ 2γ ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
ψ(λ + γ)(λ + γ − 1)(l/2)γ − PR λ(1 − λ) ≤ 0.
dE12 (x)
dx2

(27)

≤ 0 holds for all x ∈ (0, l)
From Lemma 2 (see (22)),
under this condition. Then taking (24) into account, we can
1 (x)
with x, as shown
roughly draw the variation trend of dEdx
in Fig. 7(a). Further considering the positivity and symmetry
properties of E1 (x), we sketch how E1 (x) varies with x in

8

Fig. 7(b). Specifically, E1 (x) first increases from x = 0+ to
x = l/2 and then decreases from x = l/2 to x = l− , and thus
x = l/2 can be ensured as the only extreme point as well as
the globally maximum point for x ∈ (0, l). Moreover, from
(15), we can obtain
{E1 (x)}min = E1 (x = 0+ ) = E1 (x = l− ) = E0 (l)
⇒ E0 (l) ≤ E1 (x), ∀x ∈ (0, l).

Substituting (32) into (31) yields

C. Case 2: D > 0
dE 2 (x)

this case, dx1 2 ≤ 0 possibly does not hold for some
(0, l) (see (22)), and thus a stationary point of E1 (x)
not be an extreme point. In spite of this, we can infer
E1 (x) varies with x successively from the features of
dE13 (x) dE12 (x)
dE1 (x)
dx3 , dx2 , and
dx . The following lemma, which will
be used in Theorem 3 and Theorem 4, quantifies all the
possible optimal solutions of (16) in this case.

Lemma 3. E1 (x) getsq
its global minimum at x = l/2, x = 0+ ,
PR λ(1−λ)
.
or x = l− when l > 2γ ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
q
PR λ(1−λ)
Proof: Similarly, rearranging l > 2 γ ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
yields
(29)

dE12 (x)
dx2

From Lemma 2,
≤ 0 possibly does not hold for some
x ∈ (0, l) under this condition (see (22)). Still, the values of
dE 2 (x)
some key points regarding dx1 2 can be identified from (25)
dE12 (x)
dx2
dE12 (x)
dx2
dE12 (x)
dx2

→ −∞
x=0+

→ −∞
x=l−

2L 
ψ(λ + γ)(λ + γ − 1)(l/2)γ
αω
x=l/2

− PR λ(1 − λ) > 0.
(30)
Furthermore, we compute the third derivative of E1 with
respect to x as


dE13 (x)
L n
PR λ(1 − λ)(2 − λ) xλ−3 − (l − x)λ−3
=
dx3
αω
+ ψ(λ + γ)(λ + γ − 1)(λ + γ − 2)·
 λ+γ−3
o
x
− (l − x)λ+γ−3 , x ∈ (0, l)
(31)
where λ − 3 ∈ (−3, −2) and λ + γ − 3 ∈ (−1, 0) from
(10). Notice that E1 (x) = E1 (l − x), so that we just need
to consider the semi-open interval (0, l/2], and the other half
= (l/2)λ−2

(32)

(28)

Remark 2. Theorem
2 indicates that, once the transmission
q
PR λ(1−λ)
range l ≤ 2γ ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
, the energy consumption of
direct transmission is always less than that of two-hop relay
transmission, i.e., a relay should not be deployed in this case.
In addition, the maximum overall energy cost is reached when
the relay is deployed at the midpoint of the link.

ψ(λ + γ)(λ + γ − 1)(l/2)γ − PR λ(1 − λ) > 0.

xλ−3 − (l − x)λ−3 ≥ 0, x ∈ (0, l/2]
xλ+γ−3 − (l − x)λ+γ−3 ≥ 0, x ∈ (0, l/2].

We complete the proof of Theorem 2.

In
x ∈
may
how

can be derived from the symmetry. Moreover, as λ − 3 and
λ + γ − 3 are both negative, xλ−3 and xλ+γ−3 thus decrease
from x = 0+ to x = l− , which implies the following relations

dE13 (x)
≥ 0, ∀x ∈ (0, l/2].
dx3

(33)

dE 2 (x)

Combined with (30), the sign of dx1 2 for x ∈ (0, l/2) can
be determined as

 < 0, x ∈ (0, ξ)
dE12 (x) 
= 0, x = ξ
(34)
dx2 

> 0, x ∈ (ξ, l/2]
where ξ is a positive constant less than l/2. Fig. 8(a) sketches
dE 2 (x)
the rough curve of dx1 2 with x.
1 (x)
Based on (24), we can further confirm the sign of dEdx
as follows

 > 0, x ∈ (0, ǫ)
dE1 (x) 
= 0, x = ǫ
(35)
dx 

< 0, x ∈ (ǫ, l/2]

1 (x)
where ǫ is a positive constant less than ξ, and we plot dEdx
in Fig. 8(b). At this point, how E1 (x) varies with x in
(0, l/2] becomes clear, which is displayed in Fig. 8(c). More
specifically, E1 (x) first keeps going up from x = 0+ to x = ǫ
and then going down from x = ǫ to x = l/2. According to the
symmetric feature of E1 (x), we can easily obtain the rough
figure of E1 (x) when x ∈ [l/2, l) from that of x ∈ (0, l/2].
From the figure, x = l/2 is the only locally minimum point
while x = ǫ and x = l − ǫ are two locally maximum points
of E1 (x). Hence, E1 (x) gets the minimum value at x = l/2,
x = 0+ , or x = l− .
Since E1 (0+ ) = E1 (l− ), Lemma 3 indicates that there are
two
q cases regarding the optimal solution of (16) when l >
PR λ(1−λ)
2γ ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
, i.e., it is achieved at x = 0+ and x = l−
or at x = l/2. Theorems 3 and 4 further specify these two
cases, respectively.

+
Theorem 3. E1 (x)
q gets itsλ global minimum at x = 0 or
P
(2−2
)
γ
R
x = l− when l ≤ ψ(2λ −21−γ ) .

Proof: We know that
its optimal
at x = 0+
q (16) gets
q
PR (2−2λ )
PR λ(1−λ)
γ
γ
−
or at x = l if l ≤
≤ 2 ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
ψ(2λ −21−γq
)
PR λ(1−λ)
from Theorem 2. However, when 2 γ ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
< l ≤
q
2
dE1 (x)
PR (2−2λ )
γ
, dx2
≤ 0 cannot be ensured and thus
ψ(2λ −21−γ )
Theorem 2 cannotqbe applied. In this case, we first rearrange
PR (2−2λ )
the condition l ≤ γ ψ(2
λ −21−γ ) as follows
ψlλ (2γ − 21−λ ) − PR (2 − 2γ ) ≤ 0.

(36)

9

dE12 ( x)
dx

0

dE1 ( x)
dx

e

x

x

l/2

x

l/2

x

0

˄a˅

˄b˅

E1 ( x)

x
0

e

l -e

l/2

l

˄c˅

Fig. 8. Illustration of the variation trend of
x. (a)

2 (x)
dE1
dx2

vs. x. (b)

dE1 (x)
dx

2
dE1
(x) dE1 (x)
, dx ,
dx2

and E1 with

Fig. 9. Examples of the end-to-end delay with respect to relay positions under
different transmission distance settings, where the target SNR and the receive
power are set to be 15 dB and 1.0 W, respectively.

vs. x. (c) E1 vs. x.

Leveraging (38), the following inequality can be derived.
q
PR λ(1−λ)
, E1 (x) gets its global minimum at
As l > 2γ ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
+
x = l/2, x = 0 , or x = l− from Lemma 3. Furthermore,
from (36), we have the following inequality
E1 (0+ ) − E1 (l/2) = E1 (l− ) − E1 (l/2)
L  λ+γ
ψl
+ PR lλ − 2 · ψ(l/2)λ+γ − 2 · PR (l/2)λ
=
αω

L
=
· (l/2)γ ψlλ (2γ − 21−λ ) − PR (2 − 2γ ) ≤ 0
αω
(37)
Eq. (37) implies that E1 (x) achieves
its
minimum
also
at
q
PR λ(1−λ)
x = 0+ or x = l− in the case of 2γ ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
<l ≤
q
PR (2−2λ )
γ
.
ψ(2λ −21−γ )

Remark 3.qTheorem 3 tells that, once the transmission
PR (2−2λ )
range l ≤ γ ψ(2
λ −21−γ ) , the energy consumption of direct
transmission is also always less than that of two-hop relay
transmission, i.e., it should not introduce a relay. It is worthwhile to note that, unlike the case in Theorem 2, the overall
energy consumption when deploying the relay at the midpoint
of the link is neither the highest nor the lowest in this case
(see Fig. 8(c)).
Theorem(4. E1 (x) gets its global minimum)at x = l/2 when
q
q
PR λ(1−λ)
PR (2−2λ )
l > max 2γ ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
, γ ψ(2
.
λ −21−γ )

q
PR λ(1−λ)
Proof: Recall that, when l > 2γ ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1)
, E1 (x)
gets its global minimum at q
x = l/2, x = 0+ , or x = l− from
PR (2−2λ )
Lemma 3. Rearranging l > γ ψ(2
λ −21−γ ) , we obtain
ψlλ (2γ − 21−λ ) − PR (2 − 2γ ) > 0.

(38)

E1 (0+ ) − E1 (l/2) = E1 (l− ) − E1 (l/2)
L  λ+γ
ψl
+ PR lλ − 2 · ψ(l/2)λ+γ − 2 · PR (l/2)λ
=
αω

L
=
· (l/2)γ ψlλ (2γ − 21−λ ) − PR (2 − 2γ ) > 0.
αω
(39)
Considering these two cases, we can obtain that E1 (x)
achieves its minimum at x = l/2.
Remark 4. Theorem 4 indicates
that, it is necessary to deploy
)
(
q
q
PR λ(1−λ)
PR (2−2λ )
γ
γ
a relay once l > max 2 ψ(λ+γ)(λ+γ−1) , ψ(2λ −21−γ )

and the relay should be deployed at the middle point between
the Rx and the Tx to achieve the smallest energy consumption.
To summarize, Theorem 1 is obtained by jointly considering
Theorems 2, 3, and 4.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS AND A NALYSIS
In this section, we present extensive simulation results to
exhibit the performance of relay-aided underwater acoustic
networks as well as to verify our derived theoretical results
in Theorems 1– 4. We adopt Fig. 5 as the simulation scenario,
where the packet size L = 256 Bytes and BPSK is chosen
as the modulation method (and thus the bandwidth efficiency
α = 1). Typical parameter settings provided in [3], [5], [14]
are used throughout the simulation results. Specifically, the
overall energy efficiency of the electronic circuitry η = 0.25,
moderate shipping activity (s = 0.5) and no wind (w = 0) are
set for the noise p.s.d. (3), and practical spreading (k = 1.5)
is used for the path loss model (1).
A. End-to-End Delay and Overall Energy Consumption
In Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, we show how the relay position affects
the network performance in terms of the end-to-end delay and
the overall energy consumption under different transmission

10

TABLE I
P ERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN DIRECT TRANSMISSION AND EQUIDISTANT TWO - HOP RELAY TRANSMISSION .
SNR0 /dB

l/km

10
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25

10
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
50

E0 (l)/J
0.1381
0.2157
0.3198
0.4808
0.7274
0.1480
0.2807
0.5275
0.9689
1.6759
0.1793
0.4861
1.1869
2.5124
4.6755
0.2781
1.1356
3.2721
7.3933
14.1609

E1 (l/2)/J
0.1893
0.2762
0.3521
0.4351
0.5238
0.1926
0.2960
0.4107
0.5614
0.7691
0.2030
0.3585
0.5960
0.9722
1.5448
0.2358
0.5562
1.1820
2.2713
3.9979

PR =
E (l)−E1 (l/2)
E0 (l)

Reduction ratio: 0
-27.05%
-28.05%
-10.10%
9.50%
27.99%
-32.57%
-5.45%
22.14%
42.06%
54.11%
-13.21%
26.25%
49.78%
61.30%
66.96%
15.21%
51.02%
63.88%
69.27%
71.77%

0.5 W
D0 (l)/s
6.9338
13.7048
20.4450
27.1769
33.9107
6.9338
13.7048
20.4450
27.1769
33.9107
6.9338
13.7048
20.4450
27.1769
33.9107
6.9338
13.7048
20.4450
27.1769
33.9107

D1 (l/2)/s
7.0423
13.8675
20.6500
27.4095
34.1540
7.0423
13.8675
20.6500
27.4095
34.1540
7.0423
13.8675
20.6500
27.4095
34.1540
7.0423
13.8675
20.6500
27.4095
34.1540

D (l)−D1 (l/2)
D0 (l)

Reduction ratio: 0
-1.56%
-1.19%
-1.00%
-0.84%
-0.72%
-1.56%
-1.19%
-1.00%
-0.84%
-0.72%
-1.56%
-1.19%
-1.00%
-0.84%
-0.72%
-1.56%
-1.19%
-1.00%
-0.84%
-0.72%

Fig. 10. Examples of the overall energy consumption with respect to relay
positions different transmission distance settings, where the target SNR and
the receive power are set to be 15 dB and 1.0 W, respectively.

Fig. 11. Optimal relay position under different combinations of the target
SNR and receive power to minimize the overall energy consumption of twohop relay underwater acoustic links.

distances. Specifically, Fig. 9 exhibits that the end-to-end delay
in all cases is almost invariant with the relay position, this is
because it is dominated by the propagation delay due to the
low sound speed (about 1500 m/s underwater). From Fig. 10,
all the overall energy consumption curves in cases of l = 5–20
km have their maximal values at the corresponding midpoints
and reach their minimum at x = 0+ or x = l− , which validates
the correctness of Theorem 2. On the contrary, there are two
local maximum points and one local minimum points when
l = 25 km and l = 30 km, and the minimum of the overall
energy consumption is achieved at x = 15 km (when l = 30
km) or at x = 0+ and x = l− (when l = 25 km), which verify
the correctness of Theorem 4 and Theorem 3, respectively.
Furthermore, we quantitatively compare the network performance of direct transmission with that of equidistant two-

hop relay transmission in Table I. It is observed from the
table that, properly (i.e., in the case when the transmission
distance is larger than the open distance) deploying a relay at
the middle point can dramatically reduce the network energy
consumption but almost without increasing the end-to-end
delay. For example, the energy expenditure is saved by up
to 71.77% but with only a 0.72% increase in the delay when
l = 50 km and SNR0 = 25 dB. Moreover, these data shows that
the performance improvement of two-hop relay transmission
will become higher with the growth of transmission distance
and target SNRs.

11

SNR0 = 5 dB

200

100

100

50

0

Open distance (km)

TABLE II
E VALUATION OF THE POLYNOMIAL FITTING (40) IN TERMS OF THE G O F
INDEXES .

SNR0 = 10 dB

0
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

SNR0 = 15 dB

40

0

0.5

40

20

1

1.5

2

SNR0 = 20 dB

m
1
2
3
4
5

n
1
2
3
4
5

SSE
3.613
2.887
0.2969
0.1153
0.03683

RMSE
0.02803
0.02507
0.008042
0.005014
0.002836

R2
0.998
0.9984
0.9998
0.9999
1.0000

adj-R2
0.998
0.9984
0.9998
0.9999
1.0000

20

0

0
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

SNR0 = 25 dB

20

0

0.5

10

10

1

1.5

2

SNR0 = 30 dB

5

0

0
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Receive power (Watt)

Fig. 12. Comparison between the theoretical and realistic values for the open
distance under different target SNR settings, where boxes represent realistic
values and curves denote theoretical results. In the figure, we set λ = 0.5392
and γ = 2.2074.

B. Open Distance and Error Analysis
In order to verify the existence and properties of the open
distance, we also plot the realistic results5 of the optimal relay
position (where the overall energy consumption reaches its
minimum) by exhaustive search for each combination of the
target SNR and receive power PR in Fig. 11. Observe that, for
all of the six combinations, the optimal relay position firstly
remains at 0 km (i.e, deploying a relay is not needed), and then
keeps increasing linearly at a slope of 0.5 (which means that
the relay should be located at the midpoint of the transmission
link) once the transmission distance exceeds a certain value.
These phenomenons prove the existence of the open distance
and the correctness of Theorem 1. In addition, as exhibited
in Fig. 6 and discussed in Remark 1, Fig. 11 also shows that
the open distance grows with the receive power and decreases
with the target SNR.
Furthermore, we extract the turning points of the curves
(i.e., realistic open distance) in Fig. 11 for each combination of
the target SNR and receive power PR and compare them with
the theoretical open distance in Fig. 12. The figure exhibits
that the theoretical curves overall match well with the realistic
values under different target SNR settings, which verifies the
validity of (17). In the meantime, the obtained results show
that their deviations also exist, particularly in some cases with
low target SNRs, which are mainly due to the following two
factors. First, the modeling error incurred by the numerical
approximation for the effective bandwidth (8) and the required
transmit power (9). Second, the roundoff error resulted from
a series of power operations in (17). In a nutshell, simulation
results reveal that (17) matches well with realistic results in
the target SNR and receive power ranges of our interest.
5 Note that realistic results/values in this section are obtained by directly
substituting (1)–(7) into (16) without any simplification or approximation (i.e.,
not using the fitting expressions in (8) and (9)) and solving (16) through
exhaustive search over x ∈ [0, l].

Fig. 13. Performance illustration for the fitting of the realistic values of the
open distance, where the highest degrees in (40) for log10 PR and SNR0 are
both set to be 5. The fitting surface is obtained by plotting the fitting function
log10 z(x, y), and the realistic values represented by the dots are obtained
by the exhaustive search method described in Footnote 3.

C. Polynomial Fitting for Open Distance
In this subsection, we attempt to obtain another expression
for the open distance through least-squares approximation
based on the sufficient realistic data obtained by the aforementioned exhaustive search method. From (18), we know
that the open distance is linearly dependent on the receive
power and target SNR on the logarithm scale. Inspired by this
fact, we utilize polynomial fitting methods to approximate the
open distance over sufficient realistic values (log10 PR , SNR0 ,
log10 lOP ), expressed as
z(x, y) =

m X
n
X

fij xi y j , i + j ≤ max(m, n)

(40)

i=0 j=0

where z(x, y) = log10 lOP , x = log10 PR , and y = SNR0 .
In addition, m and n are the highest degrees for x and
y, respectively. However, it is worthwhile to note that (40)
no longer has clear physical implications as the theoretical
expression (17) does.
To quantitatively measure the accuracy of the above fitting,
we adopt the following four widely-used GoF (Goodness of
Fit) indexes [22]:
• SSE (Sum of Squares due to Error). SSE measures the
total deviation of the approximation results from realistic
values, with a value closer to 0 indicating a better fitting
and vice versa.

12

R2 (Coefficient of Determination). It is the square of
the correlation between the approximation results and
realistic values, which takes values between 0 and 1, with
a value closer to 1 indicating a better fitting.
2
2
• adj-R (degree-of-freedom adjusted R ). It is similar
2
2
to R but adjusts R based on the residual degrees of
freedom, which takes values less than or equal to 1, with
a value closer to 1 indicating a better fitting.
• RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error). RMSE denotes
an estimation of the standard deviation of the random
component in the data. As with SSE, a RMSE value
closer to 0 indicates a better fitting.
Table II lists the fitting results with the highest degrees from
1 to 5. From the table, the fitting results get better when
the highest degrees of log10 PR and SNR0 grow, but it is
unnecessary to set extraordinary large values for them as the
increment of m or n will in turn increase the cost to calculate
(40). Observe from Fig. 13 that, the approximation surface
almost perfectly matches the realistic values when the degrees
for log10 PR and SNR0 come to 5. More specifically, both
the SSE and RMSE are less than 0.03, and the R2 and adjR2 are both equal to 1, all of which quantitatively indicate an
excellent fitting performance. As a result, it suffices to take
m = 5 and n = 5 for precisely fitting the open distance
(17) by (41). The corresponding fitting coefficients, denoted
by F = (fij ), are given by the matrix in (41) (note that the
indexes of its row and column start from zero).
•

VI. C ONCLUSIONS
Unlike terrestrial radio communications, effective bandwidth of an underwater acoustic channel is dependent on the
transmission range, which implies that transmission performance possibly can be improved by deploying relays along the
transmission link. Following this insight, we have investigated
two fundamental problems, namely when should a relay be
introduced and where should it be deployed if necessary
in terms of the energy and delay performance, in scenarios
of direct and linear two-hop relay transmission. Regarding
these two problems, we have first accurately approximated
the dependence of effective bandwidth and required transmit
power on the distance to formulate an energy consumption
minimization problem. By the differential analysis, we have
then discovered the existence of the open distance and derived
a closed-form and easy-to-calculate expression for it to solve
our formulated problem. Most importantly, we have strictly
proved that a relay should not be introduced if the transmission
distance is less than the open distance, while a relay should
be deployed at the middle point of the link once the transmission distance exceeds the open distance. Although this paper
considers the case of deploying one relay as the first step, our
derived results also shed light on the construction of energyefficient and delay-friendly multi-hop networks. Extensive
simulation results have verified our theoretical results and
the obtained data has exhibited that properly deploying a
relay can dramatically reduce the network energy consumption
with a negligible cost in the end-to-end delay. Moreover, we
have further adopted a polynomial fitting method to precisely

approximate the open distance based on the sufficient realistic
data for future potential applications.
R EFERENCES

[1] Z. Zeng, S. Fu, H. Zhang, Y. Dong, and J. Cheng, “A survey of
underwater optical wireless communications,” IEEE Commun. Surveys
Tuts., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 204–238, Jan. 2017.
[2] L. Xiao, Q. Li, T. Chen, E. Cheng, and H. Dai, “Jamming games in
underwater sensor networks with reinforcement learning,” in Proc. IEEE
GLOBECOM’15, San Diego, CA, Dec. 2015, pp. 1–6.
[3] M. Stojanovic, “On the relationship between capacity and distance in
an underwater acoustic communication channel,” ACM SIGMOBILE
Mobile Comp. Commun. Rev., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 34–43, Oct. 2007.
[4] Y. Li, T. Jiang, M. Sheng, and Y. Zhu, “QoS-aware admission control
and resource allocation in underlay device-to-device spectrum-sharing
networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 2874–2886,
Nov. 2016.
[5] M. Stojanovic, “Capacity of a relay acoustic channel,” in Proc. IEEE
OCEANS’07, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Oct. 2007, pp. 1–7.
[6] H. Zhang, H. Dai, and B. L. Hughes, “Analysis on the diversitymultiplexing tradeoff for ordered MIMO SIC receivers,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 125–133, Jan. 2009.
[7] X. Li, T. Jiang, S. Cui, J. An, and Q. Zhang, “Cooperative communications based on rateless network coding in distributed MIMO systems,”
IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 60–67, Jun. 2010.
[8] Z. Zhang, Z. Ma, M. Xiao, G. K. Karagiannidis, Z. Ding, and P. Fan,
“Two-timeslot two-way full-duplex relaying for 5G wireless communication networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 2873–2887,
Jul. 2016.
[9] K. Liu, X. Yuan, and M. Tao, “On the DoF region for the asymmetric
MIMO two-way X relay channel,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. PP,
no. 99, pp. 1–1, Sep. 2017.
[10] W. Zhang, M. Stojanovic, and U. Mitra, “Analysis of a linear multihop
underwater acoustic network,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 35, no. 4, pp.
961–970, Oct. 2010.
[11] F. A. de Souza, B. S. Chang, G. Brante, R. D. Souza, M. E. Pellenz,
and F. Rosas, “Optimizing the number of hops and retransmissions for
energy efficient multi-hop underwater acoustic communications,” IEEE
Sensors J., vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 3927–3938, May 2016.
[12] D. Pompili, T. Melodia, and I. F. Akyildiz, “Deployment analysis in underwater acoustic wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. ACM
WUWNET’06, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2006, pp. 48–55.
[13] R. Cao, L. Yang, and F. Qu, “On the capacity and system design of relayaided underwater acoustic communications,” in Proc. IEEE WCNC’10,
Sydney, Australia, Apr. 2010, pp. 1–6.
[14] M. Zorzi, P. Casari, N. Baldo, and A. F. Harris, “Energy-efficient
routing schemes for underwater acoustic networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 26, no. 9, Jan. 2008.
[15] A. K. Mohapatra, N. Gautam, and R. L. Gibson, “Combined routing
and node replacement in energy-efficient underwater sensor networks
for seismic monitoring,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 80–
90, Jan. 2013.
[16] C. Kam, S. Kompella, G. D. Nguyen, A. Ephremides, and Z. Jiang,
“Frequency selection and relay placement for energy efficiency in
underwater acoustic networks,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 39, no. 2,
pp. 331–342, Apr. 2014.
[17] R. J. Urick, Principles of underwater sound. McGraw-Hill, 1983.
[18] L. M. Brekhovskikh, Y. P. Lysanov, and R. T. Beyer, “Fundamentals of
ocean acoustics,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 3382–3383,
Dec. 1991.
[19] M. Sheng, Y. Li, X. Wang, J. Li, and Y. Shi, “Energy efficiency and
delay tradeoff in device-to-device communications underlaying cellular
networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 92–106, Jan.
2016.
[20] Y. Li, M. Sheng, C. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Shi, and J. Li, “Throughputdelay tradeoff in interference-free wireless networks with guaranteed
energy efficiency,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
1608–1621, Mar. 2015.
[21] J. Partan, J. Kurose, and B. N. Levine, “A survey of practical issues
in underwater networks,” ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Comput. Commun.
Rev., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 23–33, Oct. 2007.
[22] [Online]. Available: https://cn.mathworks.com/help/curvefit/evaluating-goodness-of-fit.h

13



1.965

 0.2578


 −0.07478
F =
 −0.01852


 −0.004086

−0.0002688

−0.02957

0.0001562

−3.943 · 10−5

9.809 · 10−7

−7.009 · 10−9

0.001888
−0.002509

0.001013
0.0003212

−3.835 · 10−5
−4.849 · 10−6

3.698 · 10−7
/

/
/

/
/

/
/

/
/

/

/

/

−0.0002022 1.783 · 10−5
6.729 · 10−5
/
/

/












(41)

