Performance Analysis of BPSK-Based Underwater Acoustic Communication Systems with Adaptive Equalizers in Matlab

Author : Waqas Javaid

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive simulation study of underwater acoustic communication (UAC) systems employing BPSK modulation under realistic multipath channel conditions. The underwater channel is modeled considering frequency-dependent attenuation, multipath propagation, and Doppler effects, which significantly impact signal quality [1]. Adaptive equalization techniques, specifically LMS and RLS algorithms, are implemented to mitigate inter-symbol interference and enhance system performance. The study evaluates the error convergence behavior and bit error rate (BER) of both equalizers under various noise conditions [2]. Simulation results demonstrate that RLS achieves faster convergence and lower BER compared to LMS in multipath environments. The transmitted, received, and equalized signals are visualized, along with channel impulse responses and constellation diagrams, providing insight into signal distortions. The work highlights the importance of adaptive equalization for reliable UAC in dynamic underwater environments [3]. This research provides a framework for optimizing underwater communication system design and can guide future studies on high-speed, low-error underwater data transmission. The findings underscore the effectiveness of RLS equalization in challenging channel conditions. Overall, the paper contributes to the development of robust and efficient underwater communication systems.

1. Introduction

Underwater acoustic communication (UAC) has emerged as a vital technology for applications such as oceanographic data collection, submarine communication, and environmental monitoring. Unlike terrestrial wireless systems, UAC faces unique challenges due to the highly dynamic underwater environment, including multipath propagation, frequency-dependent attenuation, and Doppler effects caused by relative motion between transmitter and receiver [4].

These factors result in signal distortion, inter-symbol interference (ISI), and increased bit error rates, making reliable communication a significant challenge. BPSK modulation is often employed in UAC systems due to its simplicity and robustness in noisy environments. However, even with BPSK, channel impairments can severely degrade performance, necessitating adaptive equalization techniques [5]. The least mean squares (LMS) algorithm provides a simple, iterative approach to equalization with moderate computational complexity, while the recursive least squares (RLS) algorithm offers faster convergence and improved tracking capabilities at the cost of higher computational load. Accurate channel modeling, including multipath delays and path gains, is essential for realistic system simulation and performance evaluation. Frequency-dependent attenuation, commonly represented using simplified Thorp models, captures the absorption characteristics of underwater channels across different frequencies. Additionally, Doppler shifts introduce time-varying phase changes that affect symbol detection and necessitate adaptive compensation [6]. This paper simulates an UAC system with BPSK modulation, incorporating multipath channels, frequency-dependent attenuation, Doppler effects, and additive noise. Both LMS and RLS equalizers are implemented to mitigate ISI and enhance signal recovery. The simulation evaluates error convergence, bit error rates, and constellation performance, providing a comprehensive comparison of the two equalization techniques. Visualization of transmitted, received, and equalized signals, along with channel impulse responses, enables deeper insight into the effects of the underwater environment on communication signals [7]. The study emphasizes the importance of adaptive equalization for achieving reliable data transmission in challenging underwater conditions. The results highlight the superior performance of RLS equalization in terms of convergence speed and BER reduction. The findings contribute to the design and optimization of robust UAC systems, facilitating future research in high-speed and low-error underwater communication networks. Overall, this work provides a framework for evaluating and enhancing the performance of BPSK-based underwater communication systems in realistic channel conditions.

2. Problem Statement

Underwater acoustic communication systems face significant challenges due to the complex and dynamic nature of the underwater environment. Multipath propagation, frequency-dependent attenuation, and Doppler shifts distort the transmitted signals, causing inter-symbol interference (ISI) and increased bit error rates. Traditional fixed equalization techniques are often insufficient to cope with these time-varying channel conditions. Reliable data transmission is critical for applications such as oceanographic monitoring, submarine communication, and environmental sensing. Therefore, there is a need for adaptive equalization methods that can track channel variations and mitigate signal distortion effectively. The primary challenge lies in designing equalizers that achieve fast convergence, low computational complexity, and robust performance under realistic underwater conditions. Additionally, accurate channel modeling is required to evaluate system performance realistically. The problem extends to balancing the trade-off between algorithm complexity and communication reliability. This study addresses these challenges by implementing LMS and RLS adaptive equalizers for a BPSK-based underwater system. The objective is to improve signal recovery, minimize BER, and ensure efficient and reliable underwater acoustic communication.

3. System Model

The proposed underwater acoustic communication system employs binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) modulation for reliable data transmission. At the transmitter, a sequence of random bits is generated and mapped to BPSK symbols, where ‘0’ is represented by -1 and ‘1’ by +1. The transmitted signal is sampled at a predefined frequency to match the system bandwidth. The underwater channel is modeled as a time-dispersive multipath channel with multiple propagation paths, each characterized by a distinct delay and complex gain. The path gains are modeled as exponentially decaying amplitudes with random phase shifts, reflecting realistic underwater scattering and reflection effects. Maximum path delays are incorporated to capture inter-symbol interference (ISI) caused by multipath propagation [8]. Frequency-dependent attenuation, following a simplified Thorp model, is applied to account for absorption losses at different frequencies.

Table 1: System Parameters

Doppler shifts are introduced to simulate relative motion between transmitter and receiver, resulting in a time-varying phase rotation of the transmitted signal. Additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) is added to the received signal to represent ambient underwater noise and channel uncertainties. At the receiver, adaptive equalization is applied to mitigate ISI and restore the transmitted symbols. The least mean squares (LMS) algorithm updates equalizer coefficients iteratively based on the error between the desired and received signals. In parallel, the recursive least squares (RLS) algorithm is implemented for faster convergence and enhanced performance under dynamic channel conditions [9]. The system model also incorporates the impact of finite equalizer length, step size, and forgetting factor on convergence and error performance. Received signals are convolved with the channel impulse response to simulate the combined effect of multipath, attenuation, and Doppler. Bit error rate (BER) is computed to evaluate system performance under various SNR levels. Constellation diagrams are generated to visualize signal distortion and equalization effectiveness. This comprehensive system model provides a realistic representation of underwater acoustic communication scenarios, allowing for detailed analysis of adaptive equalization techniques. Overall, the model captures the essential characteristics of UAC channels, serving as a foundation for performance evaluation and optimization of equalization strategies.

4. Channel Modeling

The underwater acoustic channel is inherently time-varying and frequency-selective, making it a major challenge for reliable communication. It is modeled as a multipath channel with several discrete propagation paths, each having distinct delay and complex amplitude. The delays represent the different travel times of acoustic waves due to reflections from the sea surface, seabed, and other obstacles [10]. The path gains are modeled as exponentially decaying magnitudes combined with random phases to simulate realistic scattering and fading effects. To capture frequency-dependent absorption, a simplified Thorp model is applied, which increases attenuation with frequency, reflecting energy loss in water due to molecular absorption and viscosity. The maximum delay and number of paths are carefully selected to represent the multipath spread typical in shallow or deep-water environments. Additionally, the Doppler effect is incorporated to simulate the relative motion between the transmitter, receiver, and the surrounding water, which introduces time-varying phase shifts and slight frequency offsets in the received signal. The overall channel impulse response is generated by summing contributions from all paths, each modulated by its gain, delay, and Doppler-induced phase rotation. Additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) is included to emulate ambient underwater noise from marine life, shipping activity, and turbulence [11]. This channel model allows for the simulation of realistic inter-symbol interference (ISI), which is critical for evaluating adaptive equalization performance. The received signal is obtained by convolving the transmitted signal with the channel impulse response, followed by noise addition. The resulting signal exhibits amplitude fading, phase rotation, and temporal spreading. Accurate channel modeling enables the assessment of LMS and RLS equalizer convergence and the bit error rate (BER) under practical conditions. Visualizing the channel impulse response provides insight into the multipath structure and dominant paths. This approach captures the essential characteristics of real underwater channels, including delay spread, fading, frequency-dependent attenuation, and Doppler shifts. By incorporating these effects, the model provides a robust framework for analyzing signal distortion and equalization strategies [12]. Overall, this channel modeling framework serves as a foundation for designing and optimizing adaptive equalizers in underwater acoustic communication systems.

5. Equalization Techniques

Adaptive equalization is essential in underwater acoustic communication systems to mitigate inter-symbol interference (ISI) caused by multipath propagation and Doppler effects. Two widely used adaptive equalization algorithms, Least Mean Squares (LMS) and Recursive Least Squares (RLS), are employed to recover the transmitted symbols accurately. The LMS algorithm is a stochastic gradient-based method that iteratively updates the equalizer coefficients to minimize the mean squared error between the desired and received signals. It is computationally simple and robust, making it suitable for real-time implementation, though its convergence rate is relatively slow, especially in highly dispersive channels [13]. The step size parameter in LMS controls the trade-off between convergence speed and stability; a larger step size accelerates convergence but may induce instability, while a smaller step size ensures smooth adaptation. In contrast, the RLS algorithm uses a recursive matrix inversion approach to minimize the weighted least squares error, resulting in faster convergence and superior tracking of time-varying channels. The RLS equalizer is particularly effective in dynamic underwater environments where the channel characteristics change rapidly due to motion or turbulence. The forgetting factor in RLS controls the memory of past data, allowing the algorithm to adapt quickly to channel variations while maintaining stability. Both equalizers are implemented with a finite number of taps, and their performance depends on the equalizer length relative to the channel delay spread. During simulation, the transmitted BPSK signal is convolved with the channel impulse response, and the received signal is input to the adaptive equalizers [14]. The LMS and RLS algorithms iteratively adjust their coefficients based on the error signal, which is the difference between the equalizer output and the known transmitted symbol.

Table 2: BER Performance

The resulting outputs are evaluated in terms of bit error rate (BER), error convergence, and constellation recovery. Visualization of LMS and RLS error convergence curves provides insight into the adaptation behavior and performance differences between the two algorithms. Typically, RLS achieves lower BER and faster convergence, while LMS provides a computationally simpler solution with acceptable performance. By comparing both techniques, the study highlights the importance of selecting an appropriate equalization strategy depending on system requirements and channel conditions [15]. Overall, adaptive equalization ensures reliable communication in challenging underwater acoustic channels and enhances the robustness of BPSK-based transmission systems.

6. Mathematical Approach

The mathematical model of the underwater acoustic communication system begins with BPSK modulation, converting each transmitted bit into a bipolar symbol. The channel is modeled as a multipath system where each path has a unique delay and complex gain, representing reflections and scattering in underwater environments. Frequency-dependent attenuation is incorporated to simulate absorption losses that increase with signal frequency. Doppler shifts caused by relative motion introduce time-varying phase rotations in the transmitted signal. The received signal is obtained by convolving the transmitted signal with the channel impulse response and adding ambient Gaussian noise. Adaptive equalizers are then applied at the receiver to mitigate inter-symbol interference and recover the original symbols. The LMS equalizer iteratively updates its coefficients based on the instantaneous error between the equalizer output and the transmitted symbol, providing a simple and stable adaptation mechanism [16]. In contrast, the RLS equalizer recursively minimizes a weighted least squares error using past received signals, achieving faster convergence and better tracking in dynamic channels. The equalizer outputs are used to make bit decisions by detecting the sign of the real part of the output. The performance of the system is quantified through the bit error rate, calculated by comparing the transmitted and detected bits. This mathematical framework captures the essential characteristics of underwater channels, including multipath fading, Doppler effects, attenuation, and noise. It enables simulation of signal distortion and evaluation of adaptive equalization techniques [17]. The model provides insight into error convergence, equalizer stability, and signal recovery. It forms the basis for performance comparisons between LMS and RLS algorithms. By accurately modeling the channel and equalization process, the system can predict realistic communication performance. The framework allows analysis of how equalizer length, step size, and forgetting factor impact convergence and error. Overall, this approach provides a comprehensive methodology for designing and evaluating robust underwater acoustic communication systems.

Transmitted BPSK Signal:

Underwater Channel and Received Signal:

Adaptive LMS Equalizer Update:

Bit Decision and BER:

The mathematical model of the underwater acoustic communication system starts with the BPSK modulation, where each transmitted bit is mapped into a bipolar symbol, providing robustness against noise and channel impairments. The transmitted symbols represent the information signal that will pass through the underwater environment. The channel is modeled as a multipath system with multiple discrete paths, each introducing a unique delay, complex gain, and phase shift, which collectively cause inter-symbol interference. Frequency-dependent attenuation is applied to the channel to simulate the energy loss of acoustic waves as they propagate through water. Additionally, Doppler shifts due to relative motion between the transmitter and receiver introduce time-varying phase rotations, affecting the received signal [18]. The received signal is formed by convolving the transmitted symbols with the channel response and adding ambient Gaussian noise, representing realistic underwater disturbances. To mitigate the resulting signal distortion, adaptive equalization is applied at the receiver. The LMS equalizer iteratively updates its coefficients using the instantaneous error between the equalizer output and the known transmitted symbols. This process reduces inter-symbol interference and improves symbol detection gradually over iterations. The LMS algorithm is computationally simple and effective for slowly varying channels, although its convergence is moderate. After equalization, bit decisions are made by detecting the sign of the equalizer output. The performance is quantified through the bit error rate, calculated by comparing the transmitted bits with the detected bits. This framework captures the essential dynamics of underwater acoustic communication, including multipath fading, Doppler effects, and noise. It provides a realistic representation of channel impairments and signal recovery. The equalization process improves system reliability by compensating for channel distortions [19]. By monitoring error convergence, the effectiveness of adaptive equalizers can be evaluated. This approach also allows analysis of parameters such as equalizer length and step size on convergence and BER. Overall, these four equations form a compact and comprehensive model that supports simulation, analysis, and performance optimization of BPSK-based underwater communication systems. The framework highlights the balance between complexity and communication reliability in challenging underwater environments.

You can download the Project files here: Download files now. (You must be logged in).

7. Methodology

The methodology of this study involves simulating a BPSK-based underwater acoustic communication system and analyzing its performance under realistic channel conditions. First, a sequence of random bits is generated at the transmitter and mapped to BPSK symbols. The transmitted signal is then sampled according to the system bandwidth and prepared for propagation through the underwater channel [20]. The channel is modeled as a multipath environment, where each path has a distinct delay, complex gain, and phase rotation, representing reflections from the sea surface, seabed, and other obstacles. Frequency-dependent attenuation is applied to account for absorption losses at different frequencies, while Doppler shifts simulate relative motion between the transmitter and receiver [21]. The transmitted signal is convolved with the channel impulse response, and additive Gaussian noise is introduced to emulate ambient underwater disturbances. At the receiver, adaptive equalization is implemented to mitigate inter-symbol interference and recover the original symbols. Both LMS and RLS equalizers are employed, with LMS updating coefficients iteratively based on the instantaneous error and RLS minimizing a weighted least squares error using past signal history. The equalizer outputs are used to make bit decisions, and the bit error rate (BER) is calculated by comparing detected bits with the original transmitted bits. Simulation results are visualized through six figures, including transmitted and received signals, channel impulse response, LMS and RLS error convergence, and the equalized constellation. Parameter tuning, such as equalizer length, step size, and forgetting factor, is performed to optimize convergence and performance. The methodology allows for systematic comparison between LMS and RLS in terms of convergence speed, error reduction, and BER performance. Signal distortion and recovery are analyzed using time-domain plots and constellation diagrams, providing insight into equalizer effectiveness [22]. The approach ensures that both channel modeling and adaptive equalization are realistically simulated. Data collection and analysis follow a structured procedure, enabling reproducibility. Overall, this methodology provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating underwater acoustic communication systems and demonstrates the impact of adaptive equalization techniques on reliable data transmission.

8. Design Matlab Simulation and Analysis

The simulation results provide a comprehensive insight into the performance of BPSK-based underwater acoustic communication under multipath and noisy conditions. Figure 2 shows the transmitted BPSK signal, illustrating the ideal bipolar symbol sequence before channel impairments. Figure 3 depicts the channel impulse response, highlighting the multiple paths with varying amplitudes and phases, which contribute to inter-symbol interference. The received signal after propagation through the channel and addition of noise is shown in Figure 4, where amplitude distortions and phase rotations are clearly visible. Figures 5 and 6 present the error convergence of LMS and RLS equalizers, respectively[23]. The LMS error decreases gradually over iterations, demonstrating moderate convergence speed, while the RLS error converges significantly faster, indicating its superior ability to track the time-varying underwater channel. The effectiveness of equalization is also reflected in the final bit error rates, where the RLS equalizer achieves a lower BER compared to LMS, confirming its improved performance in dynamic channel conditions. Figure 6 shows the equalized constellation after RLS equalization, with symbols clustered tightly around the ideal BPSK points, indicating successful mitigation of multipath and noise effects. The simulation highlights the impact of Doppler shifts, frequency-dependent attenuation, and additive noise on the received signal. It demonstrates that adaptive equalizers are essential for compensating channel distortions in underwater environments [24]. Parameter choices, such as equalizer length, step size for LMS, and forgetting factor for RLS, significantly influence convergence and BER performance. Overall, the results confirm that RLS provides faster adaptation and better error reduction than LMS under the same conditions. The visual comparison of error convergence curves emphasizes the trade-off between computational complexity and performance. The time-domain plots of transmitted and received signals help in understanding the extent of signal distortion. The impulse response provides a clear view of multipath effects and dominant propagation paths. The constellation diagram offers a quantitative measure of symbol recovery after equalization. The BER results provide numerical validation of the equalizer effectiveness. This simulation framework effectively models the underwater acoustic channel and evaluates adaptive equalization techniques. The study underscores the importance of equalizer design for reliable data transmission in challenging underwater conditions. Overall, the results demonstrate that RLS equalization is highly effective for robust BPSK-based underwater communication, while LMS offers a simpler alternative with acceptable performance.

This figure shows the transmitted BPSK (Binary Phase Shift Keying) signal, which is a sequence of +1 and -1 symbols representing the binary data. The signal is plotted for the first 500 samples, showing the clear distinction between the two possible symbol values. The BPSK modulation scheme is commonly used in underwater acoustic communication systems due to its simplicity and robustness. The transmitted signal is the input to the underwater acoustic channel.

You can download the Project files here: Download files now. (You must be logged in).

This figure shows the impulse response of the underwater acoustic channel, which represents the channel’s effect on the transmitted signal. The impulse response is plotted as a stem plot, showing the magnitude of each tap. The channel has a finite impulse response (FIR) with 6 paths, and the tap values are generated randomly. The channel impulse response is used to model the multipath propagation and frequency-dependent attenuation in the underwater acoustic channel.

This figure shows the received signal after passing through the underwater acoustic channel and adding ambient noise. The signal is plotted for the first 500 samples, showing the distortion and noise added by the channel. The received signal is a distorted version of the transmitted signal, and the goal of the equalizer is to recover the original transmitted signal.

This figure shows the convergence of the LMS (Least Mean Squares) equalizer error, which represents the difference between the equalizer output and the desired signal. The error is plotted in dB, showing the convergence of the algorithm over time. The LMS algorithm is a popular adaptive filtering technique used for equalization, and its convergence rate depends on the step size and the channel characteristics.

You can download the Project files here: Download files now. (You must be logged in).

This figure shows the convergence of the RLS (Recursive Least Squares) equalizer error, which represents the difference between the equalizer output and the desired signal. The error is plotted in dB, showing the faster convergence of the RLS algorithm compared to the LMS algorithm. The RLS algorithm is a more advanced adaptive filtering technique that provides faster convergence and better tracking performance, but at the cost of increased computational complexity.

This figure shows the equalized constellation diagram of the RLS equalizer output, which represents the recovered BPSK symbols. The constellation diagram shows two distinct clusters corresponding to the +1 and -1 symbols, indicating successful equalization and recovery of the original transmitted signal. The equalized constellation diagram is a key performance metric for evaluating the effectiveness of the equalizer.

9. Results and Discussion

The simulation results demonstrate the performance of BPSK-based underwater acoustic communication in a multipath and noisy environment. Figure 2 shows the transmitted BPSK signal, highlighting the ideal bipolar symbol sequence used as a reference. Figure 3 illustrates the channel impulse response, showing multiple paths with varying amplitudes and delays that contribute to inter-symbol interference. The received signal, shown in Figure 4, exhibits amplitude distortions and phase rotations caused by multipath propagation, Doppler shifts, and additive noise. Adaptive equalization is applied to recover the transmitted symbols [25]. Figure 5 presents the LMS equalizer error convergence, which decreases gradually over iterations, indicating moderate adaptation speed. Figure 6 displays the RLS equalizer error convergence, which converges much faster, demonstrating superior tracking of the time-varying channel [26]. The final bit error rates confirm that RLS achieves lower BER compared to LMS, validating its improved performance in dynamic conditions. Figure 7 shows the equalized constellation for RLS, with symbols clustered tightly around the ideal BPSK points, indicating successful mitigation of channel impairments. The results highlight the importance of equalizer parameter tuning, such as step size in LMS and forgetting factor in RLS, on convergence and error performance. Doppler effects and frequency-dependent attenuation influence received signal distortion, emphasizing the need for adaptive algorithms. Multipath delays cause temporal spreading, which the equalizers successfully compensate. Error convergence plots demonstrate how LMS provides a simpler but slower adaptation, whereas RLS delivers rapid convergence with better error reduction. Time-domain and constellation plots together illustrate the effectiveness of the equalization techniques. The study shows that adaptive equalization is essential for reliable underwater communication. BER results quantitatively confirm the improvement provided by the RLS algorithm. The analysis provides insights into the trade-offs between computational complexity and performance [27]. The simulation framework effectively models real underwater conditions, including noise, multipath, and Doppler. Overall, the results validate the use of LMS and RLS equalizers for robust BPSK communication in challenging underwater acoustic channels.

10. Conclusion

In this study, BPSK-based underwater acoustic communication was simulated and analyzed under realistic multipath and noisy conditions [28]. The channel was modeled to include multiple delayed paths, frequency-dependent attenuation, and Doppler effects. Adaptive equalization using LMS and RLS algorithms was implemented to mitigate inter-symbol interference and recover transmitted symbols. Simulation results demonstrated that RLS converges faster and achieves lower bit error rates compared to LMS, highlighting its superior performance. Error convergence plots and constellation diagrams confirmed effective symbol recovery after equalization. The study emphasizes the importance of parameter tuning, such as step size and forgetting factor, for optimal equalizer performance [29]. Adaptive equalizers proved essential for maintaining reliable communication in time-varying underwater channels. The framework provides a realistic approach for evaluating and comparing equalization techniques. Overall, the results validate the effectiveness of RLS and LMS algorithms for robust underwater acoustic communication. This research contributes to the design and optimization of efficient and reliable underwater communication systems [30].

11. References

[1] M. Stojanovic, “Underwater Acoustic Communications,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2000.

[2] J. Proakis, “Digital Communications,” McGraw-Hill, 2001.

[3] M. Stojanovic, “Recent Advances in High-Speed Underwater Acoustic Communications,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 125-136, 1996.

[4] D. Kilfoyle and A. Baggeroer, “The Coherent Processing of Underwater Acoustic Signals,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 11-26, 2000.

[5] S. Haykin, “Adaptive Filter Theory,” Prentice Hall, 2002.

[6] B. Li, S. Zhou, M. Stojanovic, L. Freitag, and P. Willett, “Multicarrier Communication Over Underwater Acoustic Channels with Nonuniform Doppler Shifts,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 198-209, 2008.

[7] M. Stojanovic, J. Catipovic, and J. Proakis, “Adaptive Multichannel Combining and Equalization for Underwater Acoustic Communications,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 1621-1631, 1993.

[8] S. Roy, T. Dutta, M. Stojanovic, and V. O. K. Li, “Underwater Acoustic Communication: Recent Advances and Challenges,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 64-71, 2012.

[9] A. C. Singer, J. K. Nelson, and S. S. Kozat, “Signal Processing for Underwater Acoustic Communications,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 90-96, 2009.

[10] M. Chugh, M. Stojanovic, and S. S. Kozat, “A Novel Approach to Underwater Acoustic Communication Using Sparse Channel Estimation,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 236-248, 2013.

[11] E. M. Sozer, M. Stojanovic, and J. G. Proakis, “Underwater Acoustic Networks,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 72-83, 2000.

[12] J. He, Z. Wang, and H. Li, “Underwater Acoustic Channel Modeling and Equalization,” Journal of Marine Science and Application, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2013.

[13] S. S. Kozat, A. C. Singer, and J. K. Nelson, “Adaptive Equalization of Underwater Acoustic Channels,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 220-230, 2010.

[14] M. Stojanovic, “Underwater Acoustic Communication Channel Modeling and Equalization,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 3042-3042, 2008.

[15] A. Radosevic, R. Ahmed, and T. M. Djuric, “Joint Equalization and Interference Suppression in Underwater Acoustic Communications,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 235-248, 2014.

[16] J. Tao, Y. Zheng, C. Xiao, and T. C. Yang, “Robust Adaptive Beamforming for Underwater Acoustic Communications,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 231-240, 2010.

[17] Z. Wang, S. Zhou, J. Catipovic, and P. Willett, “Parameter-Free Equalization for Underwater Acoustic Channels,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 14-25, 2015.

[18] S. S. Kozat, A. C. Singer, and J. K. Nelson, “A Novel Approach to Adaptive Equalization of Underwater Acoustic Channels,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 177-189, 2011.

[19] M. Chugh, M. Stojanovic, and S. S. Kozat, “A Novel Approach to Underwater Acoustic Communication Using Sparse Channel Estimation,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 236-248, 2013.

[20] E. M. Sozer, M. Stojanovic, and J. G. Proakis, “Underwater Acoustic Networks,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 72-83, 2000.

[21] J. He, Z. Wang, and H. Li, “Underwater Acoustic Channel Modeling and Equalization,” Journal of Marine Science and Application, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2013.

[22] S. S. Kozat, A. C. Singer, and J. K. Nelson, “Adaptive Equalization of Underwater Acoustic Channels,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 220-230, 2010.

[23] M. Stojanovic, “Underwater Acoustic Communication Channel Modeling and Equalization,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 3042-3042, 2008.

[24] A. Radosevic, R. Ahmed, and T. M. Djuric, “Joint Equalization and Interference Suppression in Underwater Acoustic Communications,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 235-248, 2014.

[25] J. Tao, Y. Zheng, C. Xiao, and T. C. Yang, “Robust Adaptive Beamforming for Underwater Acoustic Communications,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 231-240, 2010.

[26] Z. Wang, S. Zhou, J. Catipovic, and P. Willett, “Parameter-Free Equalization for Underwater Acoustic Channels,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 14-25, 2015.

[27] S. S. Kozat, A. C. Singer, and J. K. Nelson, “A Novel Approach to Adaptive Equalization of Underwater Acoustic Channels,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 177-189, 2011.

[28] M. Chugh, M. Stojanovic, and S. S. Kozat, “A Novel Approach to Underwater Acoustic Communication Using Sparse Channel Estimation,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 236-248, 2013.

[29] E. M. Sozer, M. Stojanovic, and J. G. Proakis, “Underwater Acoustic Networks,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 72-83, 2000.

[30] J. He, Z. Wang, and H. Li, “Underwater Acoustic Channel Modeling and Equalization,” Journal of Marine Science and Application, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2013.

You can download the Project files here: Download files now. (You must be logged in).

Do you need help with Performance Analysis of BPSK-Based Underwater Acoustic Communication Systems with Adaptive Equalizers in MATLAB? Don’t hesitate to contact our Tutors to receive professional and reliable guidance.