Submitted:
19 August 2025
Posted:
26 August 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
I. Introduction
II. Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks: Fundamentals and Challenges
A. Network Architecture and Operational Characteristics
B. Physical Layer Constraints and Communication Challenges
C. Energy Consumption Characteristics and Constraints
D. Quality of Service Requirements and Challenges
III. Comprehensive Taxonomy of Advanced UWSN Routing Protocols
A. Fuzzy Logic-Based Routing Paradigms
B. Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Approaches
C. Bio-Inspired and Metaheuristic Optimization Techniques
D. Cross-Layer and Hybrid Protocol Architectures
IV. Energy Optimization Strategies and Mechanisms
A. Hierarchical Energy Management and Clustering Strategies
B. Adaptive Power Control and Transmission Optimization
C. Sleep Scheduling and Duty Cycle Optimization
D. Energy-Aware Routing Metrics and Path Selection
V. Quality of Service Enhancement Mechanisms and Strategies
A. Reliability Enhancement and Fault Tolerance Mechanisms
B. Delay Optimization and Latency Management
C. Throughput Maximization and Bandwidth Utilization
D. Integrated QoS Management Frameworks
VI. Comprehensive Comparative Analysis and Performance Evaluation
A. Performance Metrics and Evaluation Frameworks
B. Detailed Protocol Performance Comparison
C. Performance Trend Analysis and Protocol Evolution
D. Implementation Challenges and Practical Considerations
VII. Critical Open Challenges and Future Research Directions
A. Scalability and Large-Scale Network Management
B. Mobility and Dynamic Topology Management
C. Security and Trust Management
D. Integration with Emerging Technologies
E. Environmental Adaptation and Sustainability
VIII. Conclusion and Future Outlook
Acknowledgments
References
- J. Luo, Y. Chen, M. Wu, and Y. Yang, “A survey of routing protocols for underwater wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 137–160, 2021.
- R. Mhemed, W. Phillips, F. Comeau, and N. Aslam, “Void avoiding opportunistic routing protocols for underwater wireless sensor networks: a survey,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 23, p. 9525, 2022.
- M. Tarif, M. Homaei, A. Mirzaei, and B. “Optimizing RPL routing using tabu search to improve link stability and energy consumption in IoT networks. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2408.06702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- N. Subramani, P. Mohan, Y. Alotaibi, S. Alghamdi, and O. I. Khalaf, “An efficient metaheuristic-based clustering with routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 2, p. 415, 2022.
- I. Ahmad, T. Rahman, A. Zeb, I. Khan, M. T. B. Othman, and H. Hamam, “Cooperative energy-efficient routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 18, p. 6945, 2022.
- M. Tarif and B. N. Moghadam, “Proposing a dynamic decision-making routing method in underwater internet of things,” in 2024 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (QICAR), 2024, pp. 186–193.
- N.-T. Nguyen, T. T. Le, H.-H. Nguyen, and M. Voznak, “Energy-efficient clustering multi-hop routing protocol in a UWSN,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 627, 2021.
- H. Karimi, K. Khamforoosh, and V. Maihami, “Improvement of DBR routing protocol in underwater wireless sensor networks using fuzzy logic and bloom filter,” PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 2, p. e0263418, 2022.
- D. Han, X. Du, L. Wang, X. Liu, and X. Tian, “Trust-aware and fuzzy logic-based reliable layering routing protocol for underwater acoustic networks,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 23, p. 9323, 2023.
- M. A. B. Shahraki, S. Emadi, V. Ayatollahitafti, and G. Mirjalily, “RQAR: Location-free reliable and QoS-aware routing protocol for mobile sink underwater wireless sensor networks,” International Journal of Communication Systems, vol. 36, no. 6, p. e5435, 2023.
- M. Tarif, M. Effatparvar, and B. N. Moghadam, “Enhancing energy efficiency of underwater sensor network routing aiming to achieve reliability,” in 2024 Third International Conference on Distributed Computing and High Performance Computing (DCHPC), 2024, pp. 1–7.
- I. Ullah, F. I. Ullah, F. Ali, A. Sharafian, A. Ali, H. M. Y. Naeem, and X. Bai, “Optimizing underwater connectivity through multi-attribute decision-making for underwater IoT deployments using remote sensing technologies,” Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 11, p. 1468481, 2024.
- K. K. Gola and B. Gupta, “Underwater sensor networks: ’Comparative analysis on applications, deployment and routing techniques’,” IET Communications, vol. 14, no. 17, pp. 2859–2870, 2020.
- A. Khan, I. Ali, A. Ghani, N. Khan, M. Alsaqer, A. U. Rahman, and H. Mahmood, “Routing protocols for underwater wireless sensor networks: Taxonomy, research challenges, routing strategies and future directions,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 5, p. 1619, 2018.
- M. Tarif, M. Homaei, and A. Mosavi, “An enhanced fuzzy routing protocol for energy optimization in the underwater wireless sensor networks,” Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 83, no. 2, 2025.
- M. Faheem, R. A. Butt, B. Raza, H. Alquhayz, M. W. Ashraf, S. B. Shah, M. A. Ngadi, and V. C. Gungor, “QoSRP: A cross-layer QoS channel-aware routing protocol for the Internet of underwater acoustic sensor networks,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 21, p. 4762, 2019.
- K. Sathish, C. V. Ravikumar, A. Rajesh, and G. Pau, “Underwater wireless sensor network performance analysis using diverse routing protocols,” Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 64, 2022.
- L. Zhang, S. Wang, and H. Chen, “6G underwater wireless communications: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 45–52, 2024.
- A. Petrov, M. Johnson, and R. Kumar, “Hybrid acoustic-optical communication systems for underwater sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 3245–3258, 2024.
| Component | Operational Mode | Power Consumption | Energy Efficiency | Optimization Potential |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acoustic Modem | Transmission (Short Range) | 0.5-2.0 W | Medium | High |
| Transmission (Long Range) | 2.0-8.0 W | Low | Very High | |
| Reception/Listening | 0.1-0.5 W | High | Medium | |
| Sleep Mode | 1-10 mW | Very High | Low | |
| Processing Unit | Active Processing | 0.2-1.0 W | Medium | High |
| Idle State | 50-200 mW | Medium | Medium | |
| Deep Sleep | 1-5 mW | Very High | Low | |
| Sensors | Continuous Monitoring | 10-100 mW | High | Medium |
| Periodic Sampling | 1-20 mW | Very High | Low | |
| Standby Mode | 0.1-2 mW | Very High | Very Low | |
| Memory Systems | Read/Write Operations | 20-100 mW | High | Low |
| Retention | 1-10 mW | Very High | Very Low |
| Application Domain | Reliability | Latency | Throughput | Energy | Priority Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Requirement | Tolerance | Requirement | Constraint | ||
| Environmental Monitoring | Medium (85-95%) | High (>10s) | Low (1-10 kbps) | High | Medium |
| Disaster Response | Very High (>99%) | Very Low (<1s) | Medium (10-100 kbps) | Medium | Critical |
| Military/Security | Extremely High (>99.9%) | Low (<5s) | High (>100 kbps) | Low | Critical |
| Oil & Gas Exploration | High (95-99%) | Medium (1-10s) | Medium (10-100 kbps) | High | High |
| Marine Biology Research | Medium (80-90%) | High (>30s) | Low (0.1-1 kbps) | Very High | Low |
| Underwater Navigation | High (95-99%) | Very Low (<0.5s) | Low (1-10 kbps) | Medium | High |
| Oceanographic Studies | Medium (85-95%) | High (>60s) | Low (0.1-5 kbps) | Very High | Medium |
| Industrial Monitoring | High (95-99%) | Low (1-5s) | Medium (5-50 kbps) | High | High |
| Clustering Strategy | Energy Savings | Scalability | Complexity | Adaptability | Best Application |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Static Geographic Clustering | 15-25% | Medium | Low | Low | Stable environments |
| Dynamic Energy-Based | 25-35% | High | Medium | High | Variable energy nodes |
| Density-Adaptive Clustering | 20-30% | High | Medium | Medium | Irregular deployments |
| Multi-Objective Optimization | 30-45% | Very High | High | Very High | Large-scale networks |
| Fuzzy Logic Clustering | 25-40% | High | Medium | Very High | Uncertain environments |
| Machine Learning-Based | 35-50% | Very High | High | Extremely High | Dynamic environments |
| Hybrid Metaheuristic | 40-55% | Very High | Very High | Extremely High | Complex networks |
| Reliability Mechanism | Effectiveness | Energy Overhead | Implementation | Fault Types | Recovery Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (% Improvement) | (Additional %) | Complexity | Addressed | ||
| Opportunistic Forwarding | 15-25% | 5-15% | Medium | Link failures | Fast (ms) |
| Multi-path Routing | 25-35% | 20-40% | High | Node/path failures | Medium (s) |
| Void Avoidance | 20-30% | 10-20% | Medium | Geographic voids | Fast (ms) |
| Adaptive Retransmission | 10-20% | 15-25% | Low | Transmission errors | Variable |
| Trust-Based Selection | 30-40% | 5-10% | High | Malicious nodes | Slow (min) |
| Error Correction Coding | 15-25% | 25-50% | Medium | Channel errors | Fast (ms) |
| Cooperative Diversity | 35-45% | 30-60% | Very High | Multiple failures | Medium (s) |
| Category | Metric | Description and Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Energy Efficiency | Total Energy Consumption | Cumulative energy consumed by all network nodes during operation period |
| Network Lifetime | Time duration until first node failure or network partitioning occurs | |
| Energy Balance Index | Measure of energy consumption distribution uniformity across network nodes | |
| Energy Efficiency Ratio | Ratio of useful data delivery to total energy consumption | |
| QoS Parameters | Packet Delivery Ratio | Percentage of data packets successfully delivered to intended destinations |
| Average End-to-End Delay | Mean time required for packet transmission from source to destination | |
| Network Throughput | Effective data transmission rate achieved by the network | |
| Reliability Index | Measure of network fault tolerance and communication consistency | |
| Jitter and Delay Variation | Variability in packet delivery timing for real-time applications | |
| Network Performance | Protocol Convergence Time | Time required to establish stable routing tables and network state |
| Control Message Overhead | Communication resources consumed for protocol maintenance | |
| Scalability Factor | Protocol performance degradation rate with increasing network size | |
| Adaptability | Environmental Adaptation | Protocol response effectiveness to changing underwater conditions |
| Mobility Tolerance | Performance maintenance capability under node mobility scenarios | |
| Load Balancing Effectiveness | Ability to distribute traffic load evenly across network resources |
| Protocol | Energy | PDR | Delay | Reliability | Scalability | Complexity | Innovation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | Efficiency | (%) | (ms) | Index | Factor | Level | Category |
| Enhanced Fuzzy Routing | Excellent | 92-95 | 150-200 | Very High | High | Medium | Fuzzy Logic |
| [15] | (20% improvement) | Optimization | |||||
| Trust-Aware Fuzzy Logic | Very Good | 88-92 | 180-220 | Excellent | Medium-High | Medium | Security + |
| [9] | (15% improvement) | Fuzzy Logic | |||||
| RQAR Protocol | Good | 85-90 | 160-190 | Very High | High | Low-Medium | QoS-Aware |
| [10] | (12% improvement) | Routing | |||||
| Cooperative Energy-Efficient | Excellent | 90-94 | 170-210 | High | Very High | Medium | Cooperative |
| [5] | (25% improvement) | Strategy | |||||
| Metaheuristic Clustering | Very Good | 87-91 | 140-180 | High | Very High | High | Bio-Inspired |
| [4] | (18% improvement) | Optimization | |||||
| Energy-Efficient Clustering | Excellent | 89-93 | 130-170 | High | High | Medium | Hierarchical |
| [7] | (30% improvement) | Clustering | |||||
| DBR with Fuzzy Logic | Good | 83-88 | 200-250 | Medium-High | Medium | Low | Protocol |
| [8] | (10% improvement) | Enhancement | |||||
| Cross-Layer QoS | Very Good | 91-95 | 120-160 | Very High | Medium | High | Cross-Layer |
| [16] | (16% improvement) | Optimization |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).