## 4 Evaluation Proposal and Analysis
### Results and Analysis
#### 4.3.1 Tree Topology  
For each topology, three scenarios were investigated. For this, the first scenario was a 10 node tree topology with a 50/100 m and 70/90 m transmission/interference range (Figure 2. The second scenario was a tree topology with 20 nodes and a transmission/interference range of 50/100 m and 70/90 m (Figure 3). The third scenario was a tree topology with 30 nodes and a transmission/interference range of 50/100 m and 70/90 m (Figure 4). The average energy consumption can be seen in Figures 5-7 and in Table 2. Regarding the two metrics in use, the ETX metric with 50/100 m had the highest energy consumption in scenarios with disconnected nodes (without energy), consuming more than 25% of the total energy when the number of nodes disconnected was greater than 20%. Both metrics performed better in the 70/90 m transmission/interference range, with the lowest energy consumption in all scenarios where there were disconnected nodes for HOP with 70/90 m. As the percentile of disconnected nodes increased, both metrics showed slightly increased energy consumption, but the ETX metric was the most affected. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Parameters**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Values**} \\ \hline Objective Functions & OF0 & MRHOF \\ Metrics & HOP & ETX \\ Transmission/interference ranges & 50/100 m, 70/90 m \\ Topologies & Tree, circular, grid \\ Simulation duration & 10 min \\ Number of nodes & 10, 20, and 30 \\ Type of nodes & Sky Note \\ Wireless channel model & UDGM \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Simulation parameters. OF, Objective Function. Figure 4: Scenario 3, 30 nodes, tree topology: (**left**) 50/100 m, (**right**) 70/90 m.  
Figure 3: Scenario 2, 20 nodes, tree topology: (**left**) 50/100 m, (**right**) 70/90 m.  
Figure 2: Scenario 1, 10 nodes, tree topology: (**left**) 50/100 m, (**right**) 70/90 m.  
Figure 5: Scenario 1, 10 nodes: energy consumption versus disconnected nodes from the tree topology. Figure 6: Scenario 2, 20 nodes: energy consumption versus disconnected nodes from the tree topology. Figure 7: Scenario 3, 30 nodes: energy consumption versus disconnected nodes from the tree topology. The energy consumption averages can be seen in Figures 11-13 and in Table 3. Regarding the two metrics in use, the ETX metric with 50/100 m had the highest energy consumption in the scenarios with disconnected nodes, except in the case of 10 nodes where the highest consumption was for the ETX metric with 70/90 m. We believe that this occurred because the topology made it possible for almost all nodes to communicate directly with the sink node. At 70/90 m, it had greater consumption due to the use of transmission power. What could be observed concerning the metrics was that the lowest energy consumption was in all scenarios for HOP with disconnected nodes with 70/90 m. As the percentile of disconnected nodes increased, the two metrics slightly increased the energy consumption, but the ETX metric increased more in the scenarios with 20 and 30 nodes. This could be understood because of the nature of the ETX metric. Where different paths were possible from the source to the sink, it was necessary to perform an analysis and make a decision, increasing the energy consumption before starting the packets' flow.