## 4 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Simulator Used and Its Version** & **Network Simulator Version 2.34** \\ \hline Variations in the number of SNs (\(N\)) & 25, 35, 45, 55, and 65 \\ \hline Variations in size of network (\(L\)) & 400 \(\times\) 400, 600 \(\times\) 600, 800 \(\times\) 800, 1000 \(\times\) 1000, \\  & and 1200 \(\times\) 1200 (m\({}^{2}\)) \\ \hline SNs distribution strategy in EH-WSN & Uniform random distribution \\ \hline Type of Antenna & Omni Directional \\ \hline Propagation model of Radio & Two-ray ground \\ \hline Communication Model & Bidirectional \\ \hline Interface (Queue Type) & Drop tail \\ \hline RNs distribution strategy in EH-WSN & Controlled random non-uniform distribution \\ \hline Location of Sink Node & Centrally placed in the network area \\ \hline Transmission Range (\(R\)) & 1/5 ofnetwork area (meter) \\ \hline Rate of Data (\(K\)) & 125 kbps \\ \hline Type of Traffic & CBR (Constant Bit Rate) \\ \hline Size of Packet (\(Packet_{size}\)) & 512 bytes \\ \hline Variations in Harvested Energy Supply & 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, and 2.0 mW \\ \(\left(\text{Uniform}\right)\left(E_{wait}^{burst}\right)\) & \\ \hline Variations in Harvested Energy Supply & 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.5 mW \\ \(\left(\text{Random}\right)\left(E_{random}^{burst}\right)\) & \\ \hline SNs\(\prime\) initial energy (\(E_{o}\)) & 2 J \\ \hline Energy required for transmission (\(E_{total}\)) & 92 mJ/packet \\ \hline Energy required for reception (\(E_{receive}\)) & 45 mJ/packet \\ \hline Energy consumption in sleep state (\(E_{sleep}\)) & 15 \(\upmu\)J \\ \hline Generated voltage every 15 s (\(V_{generate}\)) & 1.2 V \\ \hline For RN activation energy (\(E_{activation}\)) & 5.2 V \\ \hline Inactivity of RN start below & 3.5 V \\ \hline Total time required to charge full (\(T\)) & 150 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The parameters along with their respective values used in the simulation. Figure 4: Methodology adopted for conducting the set of experiments. Category 1: The first set of simulation experiments were carried out under this category. We varied the number of SNs and recorded the outcomes on the number of RNs, the lifetime of the network, throughput, and, finally, the average hop distance to sink. Next, Figure 5a-d illustrate the efficacy of the proposed novel framework (FRGNWS) with existing frameworks, namely, the ABC-based framework and GA-based framework. Further, Tables 3-6 give more clarity on the effectiveness of the proposed novel framework by providing the average % effectiveness with existing frameworks, considering each metric one by one, namely, the number of RNs, the lifetime of the network, throughput, and, finally, the average hop distance to the sink. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**No. of RNs with No. of SNs**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\% Effectiveness of Proposed FRGNWS Framework with Existing Frameworks**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No. of SNs \(\downarrow\)**} & **GA-Based** & **ABC-Based** & **FRGNWS** & **\% Effectiveness of FRGNWS** & **\% Effectiveness of FRGNWS** \\  & **Framework** & **Framework** & **Framework** & **Framework with** & **Framework with** \\  & & & & **ABC-Based Framework** & **GA-Based Framework** \\ \hline
25 & 10 & 8 & 5 & 37.50 & 50.00 \\ \hline
35 & 14 & 12 & 8 & 33.33 & 42.86 \\ \hline
45 & 23 & 19 & 13 & 31.58 & 43.48 \\ \hline
55 & 27 & 23 & 17 & 26.09 & 37.04 \\ \hline
65 & 35 & 28 & 22 & 21.43 & 37.14 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Avg. \% Effectiveness\(\rightarrow\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{29.99} & 42.10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The average % effectiveness of the proposed novel framework for the number of RNs metric with variations in the number of SNs.