# Spiral Mobility Based on Optimized Clustering for Optimal Data Extraction in WSNs
## 6 Experiments and Simulation Results
### Mobility vs. Static Sink  
The proposed routing protocols based on the controlled spiral mobility pattern are compared with the existing routing protocols, which use the static sink LEACH, HEED and EECS routing protocols. We took the network parameters the same as mentioned in the previous routing protocols. The network consists of 100 nodes with initial energy 0.5 J deployed randomly in the 100 m \(\times\) 100 m sensing field. The size of the data packet is 2048 bits with the transmit circuitry 50 nJ/bit, and the static sink is located in the center of the network. From the obtained results, it is seen that the proposed protocols produce better network lifetime as compared to existing routing protocols based on the static sink. Table 2 shows the performance comparison of the proposed mobile sink routing protocols with existing static sink routing protocols.  
The proposed SMOC routing protocol extends the network lifetime compared with LEACH, HEED and EECS by 1176, 1459 and 1205 rounds and extends the network stability by 674, 980 and 896 rounds, respectively. In the comparison of the multiple mobile sinks with the single static sink, the proposed M-SMOC routing protocol performed more efficiently and extended the network lifetime by 2197, 2480 and 2226 rounds; similarly, the proposed M-SMOC extends the network stability by 1379, 1685 and 1601 rounds, respectively. The major reason for this improvement is efficient cluster formation along with inclusion of four sinks instead of a single sink. Multiple sinks are responsible for collecting information from their nearby regions, and in this way, less energy dissipation is observed. Moreover, the proposed spiral mobility also reduces the instability period as compared to previous routing protocols, because of the efficient CH selection.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline Sensor Nodes & 100 \\ Network Dimensions & 100 m \(\times\) 100 m \\ Initial Energy & 0.5 J \\ Required CHs Per Round & 10\% \\ Transmission Energy Dissipation & 50 pJ/bit \\ Data Packet Size & 2048 bit \\ Transmission Energy & 50 nJ/bit \\ Receiver Energy & 50 nJ/bitT \\ Amplifier Transmission Energy Dissipation & 100 pJ/bit/m\({}^{2}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Characterization of simulation parameters.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sink Location**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Routing Protocol**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Number of Rounds**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **Network Lifetime** & **Network Stability** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Static-Sink} & LEACH & 1197 & 893 \\  & HEED & 914 & 587 \\  & EECS & 1168 & 671 \\ \hline Mobile Sink & **SMOC** & **2373** & **1567** \\ \hline Multiple Mobile Sink & **M-SMOC** & **3394** & **2272** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Performance comparison of SMOC and M-SMOC with existing static sink routing protocols.  
In Figure 5, the graph shows the comparison of the network lifetime of the proposed routing protocols with the existing state-of-the-art static sink routing protocols. Among the five algorithms, the network lifetimes of the SMOC and M-SMOC algorithms are better. It can be observed that the proposed algorithms have the maximum advantage of mobile sinks. In other words, SMOC achieves 95% better performance over existing routing protocols, while M-SMOC achieves 140% better network lifetime.