A Comparative Study of Clustering, Routing, and Security Algorithms for IoT-Enabled Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks

Abstract

The rapid integration of Internet of Things paradigms into aquatic domains has given rise to the Internet of Underwater Things, wherein Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks serve as the foundational communication infrastructure. These networks enable critical applications including ocean exploration, environmental monitoring, seismic prediction, military surveillance, and subsea pipeline inspection. This paper presents a structured comparative study of state-of-the-art algorithms across the three interdependent functional layers of IoT-enabled UWSNs: clustering, routing, and security. In the clustering layer, bio-inspired metaheuristic approaches, machine learning-based schemes, AUV-assisted protocols, and fuzzy logic-based clustering frameworks are systematically reviewed and evaluated against metrics including network lifetime, energy consumption, and packet delivery ratio. In the routing layer, geographic and opportunistic protocols, trust-based and void-aware routing schemes, reinforcement learning-driven approaches, and hybrid AI-routing frameworks are comparatively analysed. In the security layer, lightweight cryptographic and signcryption schemes, multi-attribute trust management frameworks, deep learning-based intrusion detection systems, federated learning IDS, and blockchain-assisted security mechanisms are evaluated for their detection capability and deployment feasibility on resource-constrained acoustic nodes. The comparative analysis reveals a consistent pattern across all three layers: existing algorithms demonstrate strong performance under controlled simulation conditions but exhibit significant degradation when confronted with the physical realities of underwater deployment particularly dynamic node topology, acoustic channel unpredictability, and embedded hardware resource constraints. The most promising directions for original contribution are identified as: mobility-aware DRL clustering with provable convergence bounds, adaptive trust calibration mechanisms that distinguish malicious behaviour from acoustic channel-induced packet loss, and lightweight CNN-GRU model compression for real-time intrusion detection on constrained UWSN nodes. Cross-layer performance trade-offs are analysed, and a unified framework perspective is proposed, demonstrating that the interaction between upstream clustering decisions and downstream routing and security performance constitutes the central open problem in holistic UWSN system design.

Introduction

The Internet of Underwater Things (IoUT) extends IoT technologies into aquatic environments through Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks (UWSNs), enabling applications such as ocean monitoring, seismic detection, military surveillance, and underwater inspection. These networks rely on acoustic communication because radio waves attenuate quickly underwater. However, UWSNs face major challenges including high propagation delay, limited bandwidth, energy constraints, node mobility, multipath fading, and complex three-dimensional deployment conditions. These issues make network design for clustering, routing, and security highly difficult, especially in real-time and resource-limited underwater environments.

A key problem in IoT-enabled UWSNs is the need to jointly optimize three core layers: clustering (grouping sensor nodes and selecting cluster heads), routing (finding efficient data transmission paths), and security (protecting against attacks such as black hole, sinkhole, and replay attacks). Although many studies have addressed each layer separately using techniques like bio-inspired optimization, reinforcement learning, trust-based routing, and lightweight cryptography, there is a lack of unified frameworks that evaluate all three together. This fragmented approach limits system-level optimization and practical deployment insights.

The paper reviews existing methods and highlights advances in clustering (e.g., swarm intelligence and deep learning-based methods), routing (e.g., geographic and reinforcement learning-based protocols), and security (e.g., blockchain, intrusion detection systems, and federated learning). It also shows that recent research increasingly favors permissioned, adaptive, and energy-efficient solutions due to underwater constraints.

Conclusion

This comparative study has examined clustering, routing, and security algorithms across the IoT-enabled Underwater Wireless Sensor Network landscape, identifying both the current state of the art and the most promising directions for future research. Across all three layers, a clear pattern emerges: existing algorithms perform well under controlled simulation conditions but fall short when confronted with the physical realities of underwater deployment node mobility driven by ocean currents, acoustic channel unpredictability, and the resource constraints of embedded sensor hardware. At the clustering layer, DRL-based approaches represent the strongest frontier for original contribution. While reinforcement learning has demonstrated adaptive performance across diverse network conditions, its application to three-dimensional underwater environments with dynamic node topology remains largely unsolved. At the routing layer, trust-aware void-avoiding protocols offer adaptive threshold mechanism grounded in a rigorous distinguishability model would directly address this gap and advance both the security and reliability of underwater routing. At the security layer, CNN-GRU hybrid intrusion detection systems have demonstrated strong accuracy in simulation, Lightweight model compression tailored specifically for UWSN intrusion detection systems. Looking beyond the near-term contributions, this study lends to future research directions with the potential to redefine the capability and sustainability of IoUT deployments such as unified cross-layer joint optimisation of clustering, routing, and security as a single multi-objective problem, Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) for post-quantum-secure key establishment resilient to future quantum computing threats, eco-aware algorithm design that minimises total acoustic emission into the water column to protect marine fauna in ecologically sensitive deployment zones.

References

[1] Akyildiz, I. F., Pompili, D., and Melodia, T. Underwater acoustic sensor networks: research challenges. Ad Hoc Networks, 3(3), pp. 257–279, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2005.01.004. [2] Heidemann, J., Stojanovic, M., and Zorzi, M. Underwater sensor networks: applications, advances and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 370(1958), pp. 158–175, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0214. [3] Khan, M.U., Aamir, M., Shams, R., Otero, P., Jilani, U., & Saleem, F. (2023). Comparative Evaluation of Acoustic Channel Characteristics for Reliable Design of Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks (UASN). 2023 Global Conference on Wireless and Optical Technologies (GCWOT), 1-7. [4] Awan, K.M., Shah, P.A., Iqbal, K., Gillani, S.A., Ahmad, W., & Nam, Y. (2019). Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks: A Review of Recent Issues and Challenges. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput., 2019, 6470359:1-6470359:20. [5] Jiang, Zhe, Bingbing Zheng, Weijie Ning and Xiaohong Shen. “Feature-Level Data Aggregation for Underwater Acoustic Networks Based on Distributed Function Approximation and Cross-Layer Design.” IEEE Sensors Journal 24 (2024): 28164-28177. [6] Liu, Z., Liang, Z., Yuan, Y., Chan, K.Y., & Guan, X. (2024). Energy-Efficient Data Collection Scheme Based on Value of Information in Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 11, 18255-18265. [7] Majid, M., Habib, S., Javed, A. R., et al. Applications of wireless sensor networks and Internet of Things frameworks in the industry revolution 4.0: a systematic literature review. Sensors, 22(6), Article 2087, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22062087. [8] Javaid, N., Sher, A., Nasir, H., and Guizani, N. Intelligence in IoT-based 5G networks: opportunities and challenges. IEEE Communications Magazine, 56(10), pp. 94–100, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2018.1800036. [9] Coutinho, R. W. L., Boukerche, A., Vieira, L. F. M., and Loureiro, A. A. F. Geographic and opportunistic routing for underwater sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 65(2), pp. 548–561, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2015.2423677. [10] Zhu, Y., Peng, Z., and Cui, J.-H. Reinforcement learning-based routing for underwater acoustic sensor networks. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 10(4), pp. 3246–3259, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2022.3214432. [11] Hamdan, S., Ayyash, M., and Almajali, S. Edge-computing architectures for Internet of Things applications: a survey. Sensors, 20(22), Article 6441, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20226441. [12] Ali, I., Hassan, A., and Li, F. Blockchain and machine learning for IoT security: a survey. Future Generation Computer Systems, 151, pp. 160–180, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2023.09.028. [13] Jia, Y., Wang, L., Zhang, H., et al. An energy efficient hierarchical routing approach for UWSNs using biology inspired intelligent optimization (CTRGWO-CRP). Scientific Reports, 15, Article 21336, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-21336-4. [14] Khafaga, D. S., El-Kenawy, E.-S. M., Ibrahim, A., et al. Hybrid Marine Predator and Hunger Games Search Algorithm (HGS-MPA) for energy-efficient clustering in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, Wiley, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.70073. [15] Kaveripakam, S., Balusamy, B., Selvarajan, S., et al. Clustering-based dragonfly optimization algorithm for underwater wireless sensor networks (CDFO-UWSN). Alexandria Engineering Journal, 79, pp. 130–141, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.08.016. [16] Nayyar, A., and Singh, R. Hybrid cat cheetah optimization algorithm (HC2OA) for cluster-based routing in underwater wireless sensor networks. Scientific Reports, 13, Article 14891, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42158-4. [17] Zhang, X., Liu, Y., and Wang, J. EAFSCCIP: Energy-aware artificial fish swarm clustering with cluster-head iterative protocol for UWSNs. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 2024(1), Article 45, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13638-024-02345-6. [18] Mohammed, A., and Al-Hamami, A. ZFO-SHO: Zebra and sea horse optimization-based two-phase dynamic clustering for underwater wireless sensor networks. Sensors, 24(8), Article 2601, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24082601. [19] Chen, W., Li, M., and Zhao, R. HECRA: High-efficiency clustering routing algorithm with AUV assistance for IoUT networks. Sensors, 24(5), Article 1482, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24051482. [20] Park, S., Kim, H., and Lee, J. Energy-aware K-Means clustering with A* path planning for AUV-assisted underwater sensor networks. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (SSRG-IJECE), 12(1), pp. 45–57, 2025. https://doi.org/10.14445/23488379/IJECE-V12I1P106. [21] Hassan, M., Sarwar, B., and Raza, I. Fuzzy logic-based hybrid clustering protocol for energy efficiency in underwater wireless sensor networks. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 72(1), Article 18, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-025-00412-3. [22] Awais, M., Ahmed, A., and Javaid, N. MSGER and MSLETR: Enhanced geographic and depth-adjusted routing protocols for void avoidance in UWSNs. IEEE Access, 11, pp. 32114–32128, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3261189. [23] Coutinho, R. W. L., and Boukerche, A. C-GEDAR: Cluster-based geographic and opportunistic routing with depth-adjusted topology control for sparse UWSNs. Computer Networks, 220, Article 109490, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2022.109490. [24] Ahmed, Farwa et al. “Geospatial Division Based Geographic Routing for Interference Avoidance in Underwater WSNs.” Recent Trends and Advances in Wireless and IoT-enabled Networks, 2019. [25] Qadir, Z., Khan, I. U., Munawar, H. S., and Le, K. Trust-based void-aware routing with multi-dimensional trust evaluation for underwater acoustic sensor networks. Nature Scientific Reports, 14, Article 7423, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57423-3. [26] Xiao, M., Zhang, Y., and Cheng, X. TESM: Trust evaluation-based secure multi-path routing using multi-objective reinforcement learning in IoT-UWSN. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 11(3), pp. 4812–4825, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3318742. [27] Arafa, M., Saroit, I. A., and Abdel-Hamid, A. DRQL: Deep reinforcement Q-learning with stochastic network calculus for QoS-aware routing in IoUT. Ad Hoc Networks, 168, Article 103714, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2025.103714. [28] Gupta, A., Tripathi, M., and Sharma, T. P. Hybrid Q-learning with predictive link quality estimation for energy-efficient routing in mobile UWSNs. Computer Communications, 214, pp. 91–103, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2024.02.006. [29] Sattibabu, R., Prasad, A. M., and Suresh, Y. Federated reinforcement learning for privacy-preserving routing in IoT-enabled wireless sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 22(1), pp. 512–525, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSM.2024.3481523. [30] Liu, Z., and Chen, H. Distributed multi-agent reinforcement learning (DMARL) for routing in hybrid acoustic-optical underwater sensor networks. IEEE Sensors Journal, 24(7), pp. 11203–11216, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2024.3362147. [31] Ahmed, N., De, D., and Hussain, I. Internet of Things (IoT) for smart precision agriculture and farming in rural areas. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 5(6), pp. 4890–4899, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2018.2879579. [32] Rahman, M. A., and Shah, M. A. Security enhancement for IoT communications exposed to eavesdroppers with multiple eavesdroppers. IEEE Access, 4, pp. 5718–5730, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2601299. [33] Al-Turjman, F., and Imran, M. Multi-attribute trust evaluation framework for routing in underwater acoustic sensor networks. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 11(2), pp. 2891–2904, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3290156. [34] Wang, B., Liu, Y., and Zhang, W. Lightweight signcryption scheme for authentication and data confidentiality in resource-constrained underwater wireless sensor networks. Scientific Reports, 15, Article 9214, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-09214-7. [35] Thakor, V. A., Razzaque, M. A., and Khandaker, M. R. A. Lightweight cryptography algorithms for resource-constrained IoT devices: a review, comparison and research opportunities. IEEE Access, 9, pp. 28177–28193, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3052867. [36] Dong, Y., Chen, X., Pan, S., and Ning, H. BCE-IoT: Blockchain-enabled federated intrusion detection with SHAP explainability for IoT trust management. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 20, pp. 1234–1249, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2025.3340821. [37] Li, M., Zhang, H., and Liu, Y. CNN-GRU deep learning hybrid for real-time intrusion detection in IoT-enabled underwater sensor networks. Applied Sciences, 15(3), Article 1124, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031124. [38] Shenbagharaman, K., and Paramasivan, B. XGBoost with running city game optimization (RCGO) for secure and energy-efficient routing in underwater wireless sensor networks. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 11(8), pp. 13447–13460, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3343289. [39] Nguyen, T., Rieger, P., de Viti, R., et al. FLAME: Taming backdoors in federated learning. USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 1415–1432, 2022. [40] NIST. Submission requirements and evaluation criteria for the lightweight cryptography standardization process. National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST IR 8369, 2023. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8369. [41] Heinzelman, W. R., Chandrakasan, A., and Balakrishnan, H. Energy-efficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks (LEACH). Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 1–10, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2000.926982. [42] Younis, O., and Fahmy, S. HEED: a hybrid, energy-efficient, distributed clustering approach for ad hoc sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 3(4), pp. 366–379, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMC.2004.41. [43] Domingo, M. C. Overview of channel models for underwater wireless communication networks. Physical Communication, 1(3), pp. 163–182, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phycom.2008.09.001.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Mr. V. Balasubramaniyam, Dr. P. Srimanchari. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.