## 6 Simulation and Results Discussion
Figure 5, shows the comparison of end-to-end delay of the DTM, and CD-ICC protocol as a function of \(d_{sd}\) and \(\sigma\). The important results appeared in the figure:  
1. The e2e delay of CD-ICC is less compared to the DTM. 2. For large distances between \(S-R\) and \(R-D\) links, the e2e delay is high. 3. At distance \(d_{sd}=2\), and \(\sigma=12\) dB, the e2e delay is reduce by 23.5% compared to DTM. Further, at distance \(d_{sd}=2\), an\(\sigma=9.5\) dB, the e2e delay is reduced by 20% compared to DTM. However, at distance \(d_{sd}=2\), and \(\sigma=7\) dB, the e2e delay is reduced by 18% compared to DTM. Figure 4: Successful transmission probability of CD-ICC with \(\xi_{min}\). In all cases, \(d_{sd}\) is 1, and \(\rho\) is 3.5. Figure 3: Comparison of successful transmission probability of DTM and CD-ICC with normalized inter-node distance, \(\rho\) is 3.5, \(\xi_{min}\) is 6, and \(\xi_{max}\) is 7. Figure 6, shows the comparison of e2e delay of CD-ICC protocol as a function of \(\xi_{min}\). The important results appeared in the figure are summarized as follows: As the \(\xi_{min}\) increases, e2e delay increases as well that is because of the critical data sent over different paths to guarantee delivering of the data to the destination. Furthermore, It can be seen from Figure 5 that at the large \(\xi_{min}\) (more than 5), the e2e delay is large at small \(d_{sr}\) and \(d_{rd}\) and vice versa. Figure 7 shows the comparison of the duty cycle of the DTM, MI-ICC [34], and CD-ICC protocol as a function of \(d_{sd}\). The important results appeared in the figure: The duties cycle of the DTM, MI-CC and CD-ICC are reduced with large \(d_{sd}\). While the duties cycle of the MI-CC and CD-ICC less than DTM. However, the duties cycle of CD-ICC is less than MI-ICC. At distance \(d_{sd}=2.5\), the duty cycle of  
Figure 5: Comparison of e2e delay of DTM and CD-ICC with normalized inter-node distance, \(d_{sd}\). In all cases, the \(\rho\) is 3.5, \(\xi_{min}\) is 6 and \(\xi_{max}\) is 7. Figure 6: e2e delay of CD-ICC with \(\xi_{min}\). In all cases, \(d_{sd}\) is 1 and \(\rho\) is 3.5. CD-ICC is improved by 60% compared to DTM and by 13% compared to MI-ICC. We consider MI-ICC because it support critical data, while CD-ICC support both critical and normal data. Figure 8, shows the comparison of the duty cycle of CD-ICC protocol as a function of \(\xi_{min}\). Where, as the \(\xi_{min}\) increases, duty cycle increases as well that is because of the critical data sent over different paths to guarantee data delivering. When the relay sensor located at mid-distance between source and destination, the duty cycle is reduced for \(\xi_{min}\) (\(<5\)). On the other hand, the duty cycle is increased for \(\xi_{min}\) (\(>5\)), when the relay sensor located far away from source and destination. Figure 7: Comparison of Duty cycle of DTM, MI-ICC [34] and CD-ICC with normalized inter-node distance, \(d_{sd}\). In all cases, the \(\rho\) is 3.5, \(T_{sleep}\) is 25, \(\xi_{min}\) is 6 and \(\xi_{max}\) is 7. Figure 9, shows the comparison of average power transmission of the DTM, MI-ICC [34] and CD-ICC protocol as a function of \(d_{sd}\) and \(\sigma\). The average power transmission of the proposed protocol is low compared to MI-ICC [34] and DTM. In addition, at distance \(d_{sd}=2.5\), the power saving of CD-ICC with respect to DTM is 37.5%, and with respect to MI-ICC is 10%. Finally, Figure 10 shows the comparison of the average power transmission of CD-ICC protocol as a function of \(\xi_{min}\). When the \(\xi_{min}\) is growing up, then more power transmission is required to deliver the data efficiently to the destination. Figure 10: Average power transmission of CD-ICC with \(\xi_{min}\). In all cases, \(d_{sd}\) is 1, \(\sigma\) is 12 dB and \(\rho\) is 3. Figure 9: Comparison of average power transmission of DTM, MI-ICC and CD-ICC with normalized inter-node distance, \(d_{sd}\).