## 5 Simulation and Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Total Nodes** & **Field Dimensions (X2 \(\times\) Y2)** & **BS Position (X1, Y1)** \\ \hline
200 & (350 m \(\times\) 350 m) & (150 m, 480 m) \\ \hline
200 & (300 m \(\times\) 320 m) & (150 m, 480 m) \\ \hline
200 & (300 m \(\times\) 280 m) & (150 m, 480 m) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Key simulation parameters used in the first experiment. other two experiments (100, and 200 nodes), the overall network lifetime also declined for all protocols. However, the EDMR-S and the EDMR-D protocols continued to surpass the other protocols, even when the number of nodes was reduced. Figure 11: Network lifetime vs. number of nodes for the EDMR-S, EDMR-D, DMR, EDMHIT, and LEACH protocols. Figure 10: Network lifetime vs. network size for the EDMR-S, EDMR-D, DMR, EDMHIT, and LEACH protocols. Figure 12 illustrates the number of alive nodes over the simulation rounds. As is evident, the EDMR-S and the EDMR-D protocols significantly extended the network lifetime compared to the DMR protocol and other evaluated protocols. The proposed protocols and the DMR protocol maintained a moderate decline in the number of alive nodes throughout the rounds. In contrast, the EDMHT and LEACH protocols showed a rapid decline in the number of alive nodes. Notably, the EDMR-S protocol demonstrated relative superiority over the EDMR-D protocol due to its static sleeping mechanism, which keeps the inactive clusters in sleep mode for the remainder of the round. The stability of the network under all the evaluated protocols is shown in Figure 13. Three main moments were selected: the first dead node, the half-dead node, and the final dead node. As observed, the EDMR-S and the EDMR-D protocols required 384 and 364 rounds, respectively, before the first node died, representing the highest number of rounds among the evaluated protocols. Likewise, the EDMR-S protocol reached 1702 rounds before 50% of the network nodes died, whereas the EDMR-D protocol required 1590 rounds. In comparison, the DMR, EDMHT, and LEACH protocols required 1349, 434, and 49 rounds, respectively. Regarding the final dead node, the proposed protocols once again yielded the highest number of rounds compared to the other protocols. Hence, the proposed protocols enhanced the network stability compared to the DMR protocol. Figure 14 demonstrates the overall number of packets transmitted to the BS for each evaluated protocol. As shown, the EDMR-S and EDMR-D protocols achieved the highest number of packets sent to the BS. This result was obtained because the network lifetime \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Total Nodes** & **Field Dimensions (x \(\times\) y)** & **BS Position (x1, y1)** \\ \hline
100 & (350 m \(\times\) 350 m) & (150 m, 480 m) \\ \hline
200 & (350 m \(\times\) 350 m) & (150 m, 480 m) \\ \hline
300 & (350 m \(\times\) 350 m) & (150 m, 480 m) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Key simulation parameters used in experiment 2. Figure 12: Number of alive nodes vs. number of rounds for the EDMR-S, EDMR-D, DMR, EDMHT, and LEACH protocols. was extended by the proposed protocol compared to the other protocols. Nevertheless, a noticeable similarity was observed in the number of packets sent to the BS between the proposed protocols and the DMR protocol, despite the relative advantage of the proposed approach. Specifically, applying the EDMR-S protocol to the WSN resulted in 39,992 packets being sent to the BS, while the EDMR-D protocol achieved 73,745 packets, compared to 36,713 packets delivered by the DMR protocol. This outcome was attributed to the mechanism used in the proposed protocol, which reduced the number of activated clusters. As a result, the number of packets delivered to the BS was reduced. Figure 14: The overall account of packets transmitted to the BS in the EDMR-S, EDMR-D, DMR, EDMHT, and LEACH protocols. Figure 13: Network stability using the EDMR-S, EDMR-D, DMR, EDMHT, and LEACH protocols.