## 5 The Simulation Results  
In simulation experiments, the sensor nodes are distributed in a 50 m \(\times\) 50 m area and the BS is located at (100, 25). Initial values are summarized in Table 3. The MATLAB tool is employed for providing simulation test-bench. The results are compared with the results of previous protocols such as the LEACH, HEED, WCA, GCMRA and TCAC protocols. For a fair comparison, when 80% of nodes die, the network will become useless which is considered in all protocols. Figure 8: Phase C and D.  
Figure 7: The cluster head routing phase. The number of nodes for random cases is 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225 and 250 nodes and for uniform cases are 100, 121, 169, 196 and 225 nodes. All these cases are simulated for all protocols. Figure 9a,b shows the network clusters provided by the DCPVP protocol for 100 nodes in random and uniform distribution, respectively. The percentage of dead nodes in uniform distribution for all protocols is presented for 100 nodes in Figure 10, for 144 nodes in Figure 11 and for 196 nodes in Figure 12. As shown in Figures 10-12, for the equal round number in uniform distribution, the percentage of dead nodes in DCPVP is less than the other protocols. Figure 13 shows the network life-time in 20 simulation experiments _versus_ the number of nodes in uniform distribution until the network becomes useless [30]. Compared to other protocols, the DCPVP protocol shows better performance for all experiments and after increasing the number of nodes this protocol still performs better than all other protocols. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Parameter** & **Description** & **Value** \\ \hline E (J) & Initial energy of one node & 0.5 \\ N\({}_{\mathrm{m}}\) & Maximum allowed Cluster Size & 10 \\ C1 & Coefficient & 0.8 \\ C2 & Coefficient & 0.6 \\ C3 & Coefficient & 0.4 \\ Dt1 (m) & Distance threshold & 1 \(\times\) Xmax \\ Dt2 (m) & Distance threshold & 0.7 \(\times\) Xmax \\ Dt3 (m) & Distance threshold & 0.4 \(\times\) Xmax \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The initial values. Figure 9: The network clusters for 100 nodes; (**a**) distributed randomly; (**b**) evenly. Figure 11: The percentage of dead nodes in uniform distribution for 144 nodes. Figure 12: The percentage of dead nodes in uniform distribution for 196 node. Figure 10: The percentage of dead nodes in uniform distribution for 100 nodes. Figure 14: The percentage of dead nodes in random distribution for 100 nodes. Figure 13: Comparison of the network lifetime in uniform distribution. Figure 15: The percentage of dead nodes in random distribution for 150 nodes. The number of dead nodes for all protocols is presented in Figure 14 for 100 randomly distributed nodes, for 150 randomly distributed nodes in Figure 15 and for 250 randomly distributed nodes in Figure 16, respectively. As shown in Figures 14-16 for an equal number of rounds, the percent of dead nodes in the DCPVP protocol is ostensibly less than in the other protocols. Furthermore, in some cases when just 10% of nodes in DCPVP die, the networks life time is finished in some other protocols. Figure 17 shows the average life cycle of protocols. As shown in Figure 17, in random distribution the DCPVP protocol behaves better than other protocols for all cases. Also when the number of nodes increases, the DCPVP shows fewer downfalls in comparison with other algorithms. In Figure 17 as the number of nodes increases, the network lifetime would increase too, but when the number of nodes exceeds 150 nodes, the lifetime starts to decrease. This happens due to the structure of clusters and it seems that for this network topology, area dimensions and BS location, the optimum number of nodes is 150. For more nodes, the hot nodes  
Figure 16: The percentage of dead nodes in random distribution for 250 nodes. Figure 17: Comparison of lifetime in random distribution. which communicate directly to the BS, would be overloaded and the efficiency of the topology would decrease.