## 5 Performance Evaluation  
MATLAB is used as a simulation tool and the collected data is averaged over 50 cycles, as the fluctuations in performance of all the schemes stopped at 50 cycles. Table 1 shows the parameters taken into account during simulations. The proposed protocols are compared with REEP protocol proposed in [4]. It is because reliability in packets advancement is also addressed by REEP. For the sake of fair comparison, the mobility model of nodes and the medium access control (MAC) protocols considered in REEP are also considered in the proposed schemes. It is because to evaluate the performance of the schemes based on their defined parameters only. The performance metrics are plotted against the rounds. A single round corresponds to the time from the transmission of data packets by a single or multiple nodes unless they are either received at water surface by the sink or dropped along the way. Figure 4 depicts the packets count reaching successfully to water surface. The RACAA advances the maximum number of packets to water surface. It is due to three reasons. Firstly, cooperative routing transfers packets in RACAA over more than one route i.e., along source-destination and relay-destination routes. Therefore, if packets are lost along one route, there is a probability that they may not have lost along the other path. Secondly, due to adaptive amplification, a relay node in RACAA increases its transmit power to the maximum level when error probability in packets is above 50%. This combats the unfavorable channel conditions. Thirdly, RACAA chooses connected paths towards water surface with the highest probability of successfully transferring packets, which further aids in successful packets delivery to water surface. Although RAR also chooses connected paths towards water surface with the highest probability of successfully transferring packets, it lacks cooperative routing with adaptive amplification of relay nodes as in RACAA. REEP does not take into consideration connected paths towards water surface beyond one-hop nor it takes into account the probability of successfully transmitting a packet over a route. As a result, RACAA achieves the highest delivery of packets to the sink. The RAR has more packets advanced to the sink than REEP. The reason is that RAR considers connected paths towards water surface and computes probability of successfully advancing packets over selected routes. On the other hand, REEP chooses paths with forwarder nodes available for one-hop neighbors only and it lacks the computation of probability of successful delivery of packets over a selected route. As a result, RAR has more packets reached to the sink than REEP. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Metric** & **Extent** \\ \hline Node’s reception mode power consumption & 0.8 W \\ Node’s transmit mode power consumption & 2–4 W \\ Node’s idle mode power consumption & 10 mW \\ Size of a single packet & 50 B \\ Size of a hello packet & 5 B \\ Transmission range & 200 m \\ No of sensor nodes & 300 \\ Acoustic speed & 1500 m/s \\ Network size & \(500\times 500\times 500\) \\ Data rate & 10 kbps \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Simulation metrics. The residual energy behavior is presented in Figure 5, which depletes in the most rapid manner in RACAA. This is due to the cost paid for reliable delivery of packets in the form of computation of connected paths towards water surface, transmit power enhancement by nodes during unfavorable conditions and cooperative routing. All these factors lead to nodes' highest energy consumption in RACAA and, therefor, the lowest residual energy is left with the nodes. Nodes in RAR consume energy in the same fashion as in RACAA except that the former does not involve cooperative routing. The absence of cooperation routing reduces energy consumption in RAR. Therefore, RAR has lower energy consumption than RACAA. As a result, nodes have more residual energy in RAR than RACAA.