# Forest Fire Detection Using New Routing Protocol
## 8 Simulation Results and Discussion  
The performance of the LARRR protocol is assessed and compared with a recently developed protocol to identify which of these protocols (i.e., LARRR or PCE-OLSR) is more reliable and efficient in the detection of a forest fire. The evaluation and comparison between these routing protocols are conducted using PDR, EC, E2E delay, and RO. Figure 11 shows the comparison between the LARRR protocol and PCE-OLSR protocol with respect to the PDR. Due to the fire conditions, the routing protocols show different performances before and after the fire ignition. Before the fire ignition, the proposed LARRR protocol achieves a 69.11% PDR value, while the PCE-OLSR protocol achieves a 46.17% PDR value. After the fire ignition, the LARRR protocol achieves a 70% PDR value and the PCE-OLSR protocol achieves a 47.74% PDR value. Thus, the LARRR protocol outperforms the PCE-OLSR in the PDR, where the LARRR protocol achieves a higher amount of received data as compared to the PCE-OLSR. Therefore, the LARRR achieves a better PDR performance of 46.6% as compared with the PCE-OLSR. This is interpreted by the fact that PCE-OLSR selects the node with the highest temperature only to route the messages toward it. Consequently, this leads to the bottleneck problem caused by the high busyness of the node's buffer. In the proposed LARRR protocol, the buffer busyness is considered for routing the messages along with the temperature. In addition, Figure 12 presents the comparison results between LARRR and PCE-OLSR in the energy consumption. Before the fire ignition, the average energy of the LARRR protocol is equal to 1883 joules and the average energy of the PCE-OLSR proto-col is equal to 1450 joules. Furthermore, the average energies of LARRR and PCE-OLSR protocols after the fire ignition are 1597 joules and 308 joules, respectively. It is obvious that the node energy in the proposed LARRR is larger than that of PCE-OLSR. Hence, the LARRR protocol outperforms PCE-OLSR with 418.5% in the reduction in the consumed energy. The PCE-OLSR method is based on the OLSR protocol, which is regarded as a type of proactive protocol. Consequently, it consumes more energy due to the control messages that are  
Figure 11: PDR results between LARRR and PCE-OLSR. exchanged in order to maintain the route availability. In the LARRR protocol, the routes are generated only when they are needed. Figure 13 shows the performance evaluation of LARRR and PCE-OLSR protocols in the E2E delay. Before the fire ignition, the performance of LARRR achieves a 2.568 s average E2E delay value and the PCE-OLSR protocol obtains a 0.1353 s average E2E delay value. After the fire ignition, the LARRR achieves a 2.733 s average E2E delay value, while the PCE-OLSR achieves a 0.0701 s average E2E delay value. It is obvious that the value of E2E delay in the LARRR protocol increases, while the value of E2E delay in PCE-OLSR decreases. This is because nodes in the PCE-OLSR protocol generate the routes even before they are required, while the routes in the LARRR protocol will be generated only when they are required. Therefore, the process of route discovery in the PCE-OLSR is executed faster than those that exist in the LARRR protocol. Furthermore, the results of RO for LARRR and PCE-OLSR protocols are shown in Figure 14. The RO of the PCE-OLSR protocol is much higher than the RO of the proposed LARRR protocol, where the LARRR protocol achieves a 43.8 overhead value before the fire ignition. After the fire ignition, the LARRR protocol achieves a 43.04 RO value. Meanwhile, the RO results of the PCE-OLSR protocol before and after the fire ignition are 379.5 and 336.8,  
Figure 12: EC results between LARRR and PCE-OLSR. Figure 13: E2E delay results between LARRR and PCE-OLSR. respectively. Therefore, the RO is enhanced in the proposed LARRR protocol compared to PCE-OLSR by 87.22%.