## 6 Experimental Results and Discussion  
The design and evaluation of the proposed WUSN have been carried out with the Qualnet Simulator. Methods such as ECCAR, EHOR, non-cooperative, and DER are used to evaluate the performance of the WUSN environment. A group of 25 sensor nodes in a WUSN is scattered in an area covering 100 m \(\times\) 100 m. It is also assumed that a pair of sensor nodes can communicate between them if the radius is 25 m.  
* The maximum path loss can be computed using the highest transmission rate and the shortest reception strength measurements [43]. It is understood that the path loss is affected by the distance between the source and the destination. The operating frequency is set at 900 MHz. * Based on the energy equation to fix the energy of the underground sensors to 100 J and the packet size to 125 bits [44]. * The ratios for power consumption and the dynamic routing factor are chosen to highlight the equal priority of electricity usage and load balancing factor. The path probability is chosen to ensure the reliability of the transmission pathways [27]. The proposed system was evaluated with a specific number of cooperative nodes in Cooperative communication using a DL-based routing model and the quantity of energy consumed was also compared. Figure 3 presents a comparison of EHOR non-Cooperative routing and Dynamic DER methods. In Figure 3, the X axis represents the number of nodes, and the Y axis represents the Total Energy Consumption (k). It is suggested that the ECCAR is effectively used for various numbers of Cooperative nodes to calculate the overall energy utilization. It has also been seen that as the number of Cooperative nodes grows, so does the energy usage of the four routing algorithms. If the number of cooperating nodes increases, then the number of qualifying forwarding nodes impacts the increased energy utilization for transmitting,  
receiving, and sometimes even sleeping modes. The suggested ECCAR routing technique improves previous EHOR, non-Cooperative routing, and DER routing mechanisms. Thus, it is more suitable to find a network that works together. Routing problems use less energy. The effectiveness of the four different methods in terms of packet delivery ratio of Cooperative communication nodes is analyzed in Figure 4. In this Figure 4, X axis represents the number of nodes and Y axis represents the Packet Delivery Ratio (%). It has been studied that as the intensity increases, the packet delivery ratio starts improving proportionally [45]. This is due to the fact that while Cooperative communication network nodes rise, additional networks have the possibility of being identified as acceptable Cooperative nodes, resulting in a greater packet delivery ratio. When the scalability increases, EHOR, DER, and non-cooperative routing methods can attain higher packet delivery ratios. The ECCAR packet delivery ratio is heavily influenced by the subsurface channeling diameter and the position accuracy underground of the wireless sensor platform. In addition to that, the number of sensor nodes in the underground is affected by the passive movement of cooperative nodes in the WUSN, thus reducing the ECCAR packet delivery ratio. Hence, in the channel selection process, the detecting and recovering modes are employed to increase the packet delivery ratio in ECCAR to produce great results in the WSU networks. The influence of node density on the average packet delay of the methods is depicted in Figure 5. In Figure 5, the X axis represents the number of nodes, and the Y axis represents the Average packet delay (s). The average packet delay of the techniques decreases as the number of sensor nodes increases, due to the ability to discover more qualifying nodes in their region to relay packets [46]. It is also found that the ECCAR has a longer average packet delay than the other methods. Hence, the packets in ECCAR are only transported within the route underground constructed from transmitter to receiver.