## 4 Simulation and Performances
### Performance Comparison  
Table 6 shows the constellation of sensor nodes and clusters when the proposed protocol is adopted, when the location of BS is set to (50, 50) at the inside of the sensor field at first, second,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Value** \\ \hline Sensor space (M \(\times\) M) & \(100\times 100\) (m \(\times\) m) \\ Number of nodes (n) & 100 \\ Initial energy (\(E_{0}\)) & 0.5 \\ Amount of data transferred & 1000 bits \\ Transmission energy (\(E_{dec}\)) & 50 nJ/bit \\ Data combining energy (\(E_{DA}\)) & 5 nJ/bit/signal \\ Amplified Energy Factor in LOS (\(\in_{fs}\)) & 10 pJ/bit/m\({}^{2}\) \\ Amplified Energy Factor in multi-path (\(\in_{mp}\)) & 0.0013 pJ/bit/m\({}^{2}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Experimental parameters.  
Figure 11: Pseudocode of CH and cluster configuration.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Meaning** \\ \hline \(l\) & Packet data size \\ \(d\) & Transmitting distance between nodes \\ \(d_{0}\) & Limit distance of free space and multi path \\ \(d_{toBS}\) & Distance to base station \\ \(E_{DA}\) & Energy consumed in data fusion \\ \(E_{dec}\) & Factors related to digital coding, modulation, filtering, signal spreading, etc. \\ \(\in_{fs}\), \(\in_{mp}\) & Energy required for free space or multi-path amplification \\ \(d_{toCH}\) & Distance to cluster head \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Parameters and meanings for the radio model.  
and FND rounds. The FND takes place in 3942 rounds. The FND of the LEACH protocol is 2983. The FND efficiency improvement rate of ELEACH-DFL over the LEACH protocol is approximately 32%. The results are confirmed in Figures 12 and 13.  
Table 7 shows the constellation of sensor nodes and clusters when the proposed protocol is adopted, when the location of BS is set to (50, 150) at the outside of the sensor field at first, second, and FND rounds.  
The FND takes place in 3654 rounds in the proposed algorithm. The FND of the LEACH protocol is 1412. The FND improvement rate of ELEACH-DFL over LEACH is approximately 159%. When compared to around 80 percent of nodes being alive and HND, the proposed algorithm is improved by 30% and 51% respectively. The results are confirmed Figures 14 and 15.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Round** & **FND** & **80\% Alive** & **50\% Alive** \\ \hline LEACH & 2983 & 3322 & 3740 \\ ELEACH-DFL & 3942 & 4320 & 4439 \\ Improvements & 32\% \(\blacktriangle\) & 30\% \(\blacktriangle\) & 19\% \(\blacktriangle\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Network lifetime comparisons between protocols.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Round** & **FND** & **80\% Alive** & **50\% Alive** \\ \hline LEACH & 1412 & 3322 & 2654 \\ ELEACH-DFL & 3654 & 4320 & 4012 \\ Improvements & 159\% \(\blacktriangle\) & 30\% \(\blacktriangle\) & 51\% \(\blacktriangle\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Network lifetime comparisons between protocols.  
Figure 12: Constellation of nodes and clusters’ configuration.  
Figure 14: Constellation of nodes and clusters’ configuration.  
Figure 13: Network lifetime comparison between protocols (base station (BS)): inside the sensor field).  
Figure 15: Network lifetime comparison between protocols (BS: outside the sensor field).  
The above experiments did not take into account the calculation quantity or the reliability of transmission; however, as the results indicate, the proposed algorithm has better energy efficiency characteristics than conventional LEACH regardless of the location of the BS.