# Location-Based Lattice Mobility Model for Wireless Sensor Networks
## 6 Conclusions  
This paper presents a mobility model, LMM, for walking patterns over WSNs. To validate the strength of LMM, the realistic scenario of an earthquake disaster recovery is simulated using OMNet++. The LMM determines the motion of the nodes and accurately provides the node's moving location, the distance from the original location of the sensor node to its current location, and the distance from its current location to its destination. We simulated the mobility scenarios and measured the performance in terms of QoS provisioning. Based on the simulation results, we discovered that latency, one of the most important QoS parameters, can be reduced by increasing the forwarding range. This is a significant trade-off that has not yet been investigated. The statistical data obtained through simulation is also evidence of the strength of LMM, as it outperformed the CMM, WMM, and RWMM in end-to-end delay, time taken by nodes to reach their next locations, drop rate, and residual energy at variable mobility rates. The LMM decreases the time for the sensor node to change its location by 34.2-52.8%. In addition, the LMM has a lower drop rate, 0.7% than other mobility models, which have drop rates as high as 2.45%. LMM decreases energy from 0.12 to 0.38 joules at 10%, 25% and 50% mobility rates--that is 10.27% energy consumption at ten complete motion cycles. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Average Delay**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Average Power**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Change Location Time**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Drop Rate**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Residual Energy**} \\ \cline{2-10}
**Modity** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Event** \\ **Range** \\ **25 m** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Event** \\ **Range** **25 m** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Event** \\ **Range** **50 m** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **With fixed 10** \\ **Range** **50 m** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Variable** \\ **Velocities** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **0-18 m/s** \\ **Velocities** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **10\%** \\ **Velocities** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **25\%** \\ **Mobility** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **50\%** \\ **Mobility** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**LMM** & 0.030 s & 0.008 s & \(1.21\times 10^{-6}\) & \(2.28\times 10^{-6}\) & \(252\) & \(177\) & \multirow{3}{*}{0.78\%} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.7 joules} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.51 joules} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.32 joules} \\  & & & & Milliseconds & Milliseconds & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}
**CMM** & 0.038 s & 0.020 s & \(1.29\times 10^{-6}\) & \(3.33\times 10^{-6}\) & \(383\) & 409 & \multirow{3}{*}{1.99\%} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.42 joules} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.34 joules} & \multirow{3}{*}{2.84 joules} \\  & & & & Milliseconds & Milliseconds & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}
**WMM** & 0.048 s & 0.039 s & \(1.39\times 10^{-6}\) & \(3.62\times 10^{-6}\) & \(398\) & 417 & \multirow{3}{*}{2.64\%} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.44 joules} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.41 joules} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.02 joules} \\  & & & & Milliseconds & Milliseconds & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}
**RWMM** & 0.051 s & 0.038 s & \(1.41\times 10^{-6}\) & \(3.64\times 10^{-6}\) & \(464\) & 428 & \multirow{3}{*}{2.51\%} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.31 joules} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.16 joules} & \multirow{3}{*}{2.84 joules} \\  & & & Milliseconds & Milliseconds & Milliseconds & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Compression of LMM with other competing mobility models: CMM, WMM and RWMM. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Improvement in LMM as Compared with CMM,**} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{**WMM and RWMM**} \\ \hline Drop Rate & 1.21–1.73\% \\ Average Power Consumption (Watt) & 14.285\% \\ Node Location finding capability & 34.2%–52.8\% \\ Energy Consumption with different mobility rates & 3.2–10\% \\ Average Delay & 8–21\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: LMM-improvement over other competing mobility models.