# Underwater Wireless Sensor Network Performance Analysis Using Diverse Routing Protocols
## 5 Results and Discussion  
The deployment of sensor nodes in 3D for the proposed UWSN network scenario, with sensor nodes and anchor nodes, is depicted in Figure 9. Additionally, the investigational  
Figure 8: Performance parameters of UWSN. results for various routing protocols, including AODV, DSR, DYMO, LAR1, Bellman-Ford, OLSR, Fisheye, STAR-ORA, ZRP, and STAR-LORA with FTP, CBR, and VBR applications, are observed for transmitting and receiving mode power consumption, as displayed in Figures 10 and 11. Figures 10 and 11 show that more power consumption in transmitting and receiving modes is measured in Bellman-Ford, OLSR, and LAR1 routing protocols. The STAR-ORA, ZRP, and STAR-LORA display relatively less power consumption due to the hybrid routing features of these protocols in the UWSN scenario. Other findings have been obtained from measuring the proposed UWSN network's performance parameters in FTP, CBR, and VBR applications for deployments of 60 and 120 nodes, respectively. The UWSN network's performance metrics for FTP, CBR, and VBR applications are as follows. Energy (mWh) Consumed in Transmit Mode by AODV, DSR, DYMO, LAR1, Bellman-Ford, OLSR, Fisheye, STAR-ORA, ZRP, and STAR-LORA Routing Protocols  
The energy consumption in the transmit mode routing protocols of AODV, DSR, DYMO, LAR1, Bellman-Ford, OLSR, Fisheye, STAR-ORA, ZRP, and STAR-LORA with FTP, CBR, and VBR applications for 60 and 120 nodes is pictured in Figures 12 and 13, respectively. Tables 1 and 2 show the minimum transmit energy required by the DSR, DYMO, LAR1, Bellman-Ford, OLSR, Fisheye, STAR-ORA, ZRP, and STAR-LORA routing protocols to transmit data at their maximum size in the proposed UWSN, i.e., 83.4 percent. The aim of UWSN is the use of as little transmitted energy as possible. Other routing protocols cannot match AODVs speed and dependability. Figure 11: Receive mode power consumption (mWh) for various routing protocols. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Protocol**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Parameter**} & \multicolumn{11}{c}{**OISR**} & \multicolumn{11}{c}{**DSR**} & \multicolumn{11}{c}{**AODV**} & \multicolumn{11}{c}{**LAR1**} & \multicolumn{11}{c}{**DDMO**} & \multicolumn{11}{c}{**ZEP**} & \multicolumn{11}{c}{**STAR-LORA**} & \multicolumn{11}{c}{**STAR-ORA**} & \multicolumn{11}{c}{**PSSHIVE**} & \multicolumn{11}{c}{**DELIMAN**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & **CRR** & **FTP** & **VBR** & **CRR  
Energy (mWh) Consumed in Receive Mode by AODV, DSR, DYMO, LAR1, Bellman-Ford, OLSR, Fisheye, STAR-ORA, ZRP and STAR-LORA Routing Protocols  
The routing protocols AODV, DSR, DYMO, LAR1, Bellman-Ford, OLSR, Fisheye, STAR-ORA, ZRP, and STAR-LORA are compared in Figures 14 and 15 for the amount of received energy they use with FTP, CBR, and VBR applications for 60 and 120 nodes, respectively. The AODV routing protocol uses 76.4 percent less receive energy in CBR application than the other routing protocols, as shown in Tables 1 and 2, including DSR, DYMO, LAR1, Bellman-Ford, OLSR, Fisheye, STAR-ORA, ZRP, and STAR-LORA. When dealing with larger packet sizes than other routing protocols, the AODV routing protocol uses significantly less received energy than those other routing protocols. When receiving data, UWSN should use the least amount of energy possible. Performance-wise, the AODV routing protocol outperforms other routing protocols. Average Transmission Delay (\(\mu\)s) by AODV, DSR, DYMO, LAR1, Bellman-Ford, OLSR, Fisheye, STAR-ORA, ZRP and STAR-LORA Routing Protocols  
The average delay of AODV, DSR, DYMO, LAR1, Bellman-Ford, OLSR, Fisheye, STAR-ORA, ZRP, and STAR-LORA protocols for 60 and 120 nodes, respectively, are displayed in Figures 16 and 17. As displayed in Tables 1 and 2, the AODV routing protocol produces an average CBR application delay of 88.6% less than that of other routing protocols. Figure 16: Average transmission delay of all routing protocols for 60 nodes.