## 5 Performance Analysis
### Simulation Results and Discussions
100 packets were transmitted from each source node to the sink node with a fixed source packet generation rate of 1 packet/second. Average values for PDR were found according to Equation (4). The figure shows that PDR of all the protocols decreases with the increase in source-sink distance. This is due to the fact that as the distance between the source node and sink node increases, more hops are included in the transmission and the probability of packet loss increases. Therefore, the PDR performance is affected. The figure shows that the TreeR protocol incurs low PDR. The low PDR performance of TreeR is due to the integration of many routing strategies. The use of  
Figure 7: Energy consumption of the protocols. (**a**) Energy consumption against varied source–sink distance. (**b**) Energy consumption against varied source packet generation rate. -phantom nodes, backbone routes, and diversionary routes result in routing paths which have high probability of packet loss events and low PDR. Furthermore, the distribution of fake packets in the network results in high probability of packet collision events and low PDR is achieved. The proposed PhaT protocol achieves higher PDR than the TreeR protocol because it incurs few packet collision and packet loss events due to the absence of fake packet distribution. The ProbR protocol achieves higher PDR than the TreeR protocol because it employs shorter routing paths with only one fake packet source at a time period. The ProbR and PhaP protocols have comparable PDR performance because they both employ phantom node routing with routing paths which are directed towards the sink node. The fake packet sources in the ProbR are located far away from the real sources. Consequently, the fake packets incur less significant effect on the PDR of the protocol. The PDR of the Pha protocol is significantly high because the protocol employs a simple routing algorithm with short and fixed routing paths. The short and fixed routing paths incur few events of packet loss and packet collision. Figure 8b shows the PDR performance of the protocols at a fixed source-sink distance of 40 hops. The experiment scenarios included multiple source nodes. 100 packets were sent from each source node to the sink node at varied source packet rate from 1 to 7 packet/second. The figure shows that PDR of all the protocols decreases with the increase in source packet rate. When more packets are generated per second, the probability of packet collision and packet loss is increased and PDR is affected. The TreeR protocol incurs the worst PDR performance at high source packet rates due to the increasing number of packet collision events between the real and fake packets. Figure 9 shows the end-to-end (EED) performance of the protocols. Figure 9a shows the EED performance of the protocols at different source-sink distances. Investigations were done for multiple source nodes at different source-sink distances. 100 packets were sent from each source node to the sink node with a fixed source packet generation rate of 1 packet/second. Average values for EED were found according to Equation (5). The figure shows that the EED of the protocols tend to increase with the increase in the source-sink distance. This is due to the fact that as the distance between the source node and sink node increases, the number of packet forwarding events (hops) also increases. Each hop incurs some EED. Hence, the overall EDD is increased. Furthermore, longer routing paths have a higher probability of packet loss and packet retransmission events which have negative effect on the EED performance. The TreeR and PhaT protocols employ long routing paths. Consequently, the EED for the TreeR and PhaT protocols is long. The location of phantom nodes in the ProbR and PhaP protocols guarantee relatively short routing paths with better EED performance than the TreeR and PhaT protocols. The fake source packets in ProbR are located far away from the real source node.