## 4 Results and Discussion
Figure 5: The outcomes of the set of simulation experiments conducted with variations in the number of SNs: (**a**) number of RNs with variations in the number of SNs; (**b**) lifetime of the network with variations in the number of SNs; (**c**) average hop distance to the sink with variations in the number of SNs; and (**d**) throughput with variations in the number of SNs. Further, considering Figure 5a, it was deduced from the figure that the proposed novel framework outperformed the existing frameworks for the metric number of RNs with variations in the number of SNs. It is a fact that whenever the number of SNs starts increasing in the network then the number of RNs also starts increasing, since the RNs are assisting the SNs in transmitting the sensed data properly to the BS. RNs also cover the entire network gradually and after achieving a good connectivity level there is no need of deploying extra RNs in the network and therefore the RN count becomes constant after a particular level of connectivity. Table 3 depicts the average % effectiveness of the proposed novel framework, compared to the ABC-based framework and GA-based framework, at 29.99% and 42.10%, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Throughput (Kbps) with No. of SNs**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\% Effectiveness of Proposed FRCNWS Framework with Existing Framework**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No. of SNs \(\downarrow\)**} & **GA Based** & **AB Based** & **FRGNWS** & **\% Effectiveness of FRGNWS** & **\% Effectiveness of FRGNWS** \\  & **Framework** & **Framework** & **Framework** & **ABC-Based Framework** & **GA-Based Framework** \\ \hline
25 & 2500 & 2800 & 3400 & 17.65 & 26.47 \\ \hline
35 & 2900 & 3300 & 4100 & 19.51 & 29.27 \\ \hline
45 & 3100 & 4100 & 5500 & 25.45 & 43.64 \\ \hline
55 & 4200 & 5300 & 6800 & 22.06 & 38.24 \\ \hline
65 & 5800 & 7200 & 8400 & 14.29 & 30.95 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Avg. \% Effectiveness\(\rightarrow\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{19.79} & 33.71 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: The average % effectiveness of the proposed novel framework for the throughput metric with variations in the number of SNs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lifetime of Network (Seconds) with No. of SNs.**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\% Effectiveness of Proposed FRCNWS Framework with Existing Frameworks**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No. of SNs \(\downarrow\)**} & **GA-Based** & **ABC-Based** & **FRGNWS** & **\% Effectiveness of FRGNWS** & **\% Effectiveness of FRCNWS** \\  & **Framework** & **Framework** & **Framework** & **Framework with ABC-Based Framework** & **GA-Based Framework** \\ \hline
25 & 9600 & 11,900 & 15,000 & 20.67 & 36.00 \\ \hline
35 & 8200 & 9200 & 13,000 & 29.23 & 36.92 \\ \hline
45 & 5900 & 7500 & 10,000 & 25.00 & 41.00 \\ \hline
55 & 4200 & 5800 & 8000 & 27.50 & 47.50 \\ \hline
65 & 2900 & 4300 & 6800 & 36.76 & 57.35 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Avg. \% Effectiveness\(\rightarrow\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{27.83} & 43.76 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The average % effectiveness of the proposed novel framework for the lifetime of the network metric with variations in the number of SNs.