A Comparative Performance Evaluations of SC and MC VLC Systems in Underwater Environments

From the acquired outcomes, it is perceived that SC-VLC communication system has approximately 8 dB better performance than MC-VLC communication system in both channel environments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯

Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, comparative performance analyzes of single carrier (SC) and multi carrier (MC) visible light communication (VLC) schemes in underwater optical channel environments are performed.

📊

Key Findings & Data:Computer simulation studies are carried out to compare SC and MC VLC communication systems in underwater optical LOS and N-LOS channel environments based on bit error rate (BER) success benchmark.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:From the acquired outcomes, it is perceived that SC-VLC communication system has approximately 8 dB better performance than MC-VLC communication system in both channel environments.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:underwater environment · visible light communications · underwater optical channel

Abstract

In this study, comparative performance analyzes of single carrier (SC) and multi carrier (MC) visible light communication (VLC) schemes in underwater optical channel environments are performed. Computer simulation studies are carried out to compare SC and MC VLC communication systems in underwater optical LOS and N-LOS channel environments based on bit error rate (BER) success benchmark. From the acquired outcomes, it is perceived that SC-VLC communication system has approximately 8 dB better performance than MC-VLC communication system in both channel environments.

Özet

In this study, comparative performance analyzes of single carrier (SC) and multi carrier (MC) visible light communication (VLC) schemes in underwater optical channel environments are performed. Computer simulation studies are carried out to compare SC and MC VLC communication systems in underwater optical LOS and N-LOS channel environments based on bit error rate (BER) success benchmark. From the acquired outcomes, it is perceived that SC-VLC communication system has approximately 8 dB better performance than MC-VLC communication system in both channel environments.

Keywords

underwater environment visible light communications underwater optical channel SC-VLC MC-VLC

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜÇLÜ, M. M., BESCELİ, B., POLAT, E., DEVELLİOĞLU, T., TAMER, G., KÜÇÜKUSTA, N. M., TANRIKULU, E. F., ÖZEN, A. (2021). A Comparative Performance Evaluations of SC and MC VLC Systems in Underwater Environments. Bilgisayar Bilimleri, Cilt: Vol:7 Sayı: Issue:2, 19–26. https://ajindex.com/articles/743144

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

Arnon S., Barry J., Karagiannidis G., Schober R., and Uysal M. (2012), Advanced Optical Wireless Communication Systems. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Elamassie M., Karbalayghareh M., Miramirkhani F., Uysal M., Abdallah M. and Qaraqe K. (2019), Resource allocation for downlink OFDMA in underwater visible light communications, 2019 IEEE International Black Sea Conference on Communications and Networking (BlackSeaCom), pp.1-6.
Güçlü M. M. (2021), Investigation of SC and MC Visible Light Communication Systems in Underwater Optical Channel Environments, Bachelor Degree Thesis, Nuh Naci Yazgan University – HARGEM, Kayseri, TURKEY, June 2021.
Kong M., Lv W., Ali T., Sarwar R., Yu C., Qiu Y., Qu F., Xu Z., Han J. and Xu J. (2017), 10-m 9.51-Gb/s RGB laser diodes-based WDM underwater wireless optical communication, Opt. Express, 25(17), pp. 20 829–20 834. Miramirkhani F. and Uysal M. (2018), Visible light communication channel modeling for underwater environments with blocking and shadowing, IEEE Access Journal, vol. 6, pp.1082-1090.
Miramirkhani F. (2018), Channel Modelling and Characterization for Visible Light Communications: Indoor, Vehicular and Underwater Channels, Ph.D. Thesis, Ozyegin University, May 2018,
İstanbul,
TURKEY. Nakamura K., Mizukoshi I., and Hanawa M. (2015), Optical wireless transmission of 405 nm, 1.45 Gbit/s optical IM/DD-OFDM signals through a 4.8 m underwater channel, Opt. Express, 23(2), pp. 1558–1566.
Shen C., Guo Y., Oubei H. M., Ng T. K., Liu G., Park K.-H., Ho K.-T., Alouini M.-S., and Ooi B. S. (2016), 20-meter underwater wireless optical communication link with 1.5 Gbps data rate, Opt. Express, 24(22), pp. 25 502–25 509. Yesilkaya A., Miramirkhani F., Alsan H. F., Basar E., Panayirci E. and Uysal M. (2015), Modelling of visible light channels and performance analysis for optical OFDM systems, EMO Scientific Journal, 5(9), pp. 18-29.
Zeng Z., Fu S., Zhang H., Dong Y. and Cheng J. (2017), A survey of underwater optical wireless communications, IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, 19(1), pp. 204-238.