## 6 Performance Evaluations
### Simulation Results
#### 6.3.1 Evaluation of Packets Delivery Ratio (PDR)  
In this series of tests, the performance of the proposed algorithm is assessed in terms of the packet delivery ratio compared to SMRP [15] and EERP [23] for the two scenarios mentioned above under different traffic rates and a different number of sink nodes. 1. _PDR evaluation under the first scenario_ This experiment compares network PDR to the average traffic rate under normal ranges. In the first experiment, we examine how the PDR varies throughout the network in response to a change in the first scenario's average traffic rate. To begin, the average traffic rate \(\lambda\) was changed from 3 to 11 packets per second. There will always be three nodes in the network that act as sinks. In the first case, as seen in Figure 2, the PDR of the network varies in line with the average traffic. Figure 2 clearly demonstrates that the proposed method increases the network's average traffic rate and achieves the highest PDR compared to the alternatives. As in this scenario, the environmental data are assumed to be in the normal range, and thus the corresponding value of the environmental impact metric is one. The reason for this improvement is that the quality of the link is taken into account when choosing the next forwarder. This means that data packets are sent more reliably. On the contrary, SMRP and EERP algorithms did not consider how to avoid the lossy links, thus leading to more packet loss, and negatively affecting the network throughput. In the second experiment, the PDR of the network was evaluated with a variable number of sink nodes. This variation has 1-3 sink nodes. Three packets per second is the typical traffic rate. Figure 3 shows the fluctuation in network PDR with varying numbers of sink nodes. More sink nodes boost network performance, as shown in the figure. More sink nodes may minimise the average distance between sensor nodes and sink nodes, thus decreasing the influence of environmental variables on data routing. Regardless of the number of sink nodes, the proposed algorithm delivers the best network PDR. Since SMRP and EERP do not consider link quality, and unreliable links might disrupt data transmission. This is why the proposed algorithm has a higher PDR than SMRP and EERP. 2. _PDR evaluation under the second scenario_  
In this set of experiments, network PDR is explored with varying traffic rates and sink nodes. The first experiment in this set compares network PDR to the average traffic rate under the second scenario. For testing this variation, the average traffic rate is in a range from 3 to 11 packets per second, with three sink nodes in the network. Figure 4 displays network PDR for the second scenario with varied traffic rates. The proposed approach provides the highest PDR compared to SMRP and EERP. Additionally, it outperforms the other algorithms in the first scenario for the following reasons. Figure 2: Influence of increasing average traffic rate on packets delivery ratio under the first scenario. Figure 4: Increasing average traffic rate effect on packets delivery ratio under the second scenario. Figure 3: Influence of increasing the number of sink nodes on packets delivery ratio under the first scenario. As the environmental parameters in this scenario are supposed to be beyond the typical range, routing paths are subject to environmental factors, which may increase the number of environmental cutoffs. This would increase the network data loss rate. The proposed algorithm is environment-aware routing such as SMRP, which can avoid hazardous zones but has a better PDR than SMRP. The modified environmental impact metric justifies why the proposed algorithm can outperform SMRP in PDR. In the case of EERP, its routing paths will eventually cross danger zones since the environmental influence on routing performance is not considered, increasing the probability of packet loss. This explains why EERP has poor performance. In the second simulation experiment, the network PDR is studied with a varied number of sink nodes.