## 4 System Model
### Gedpar
### Feasible Region between Energy Consumption and PAR Using GEDPAR

Feasible region for energy consumption and PAR is shown in Figure 16. The four points for the feasible region of energy consumption and PAR are taken as:

* Minimum energy consumption and minimum PAR

### Feasible Region between Energy Consumption and Delay Using GEDPAR

Figure 17 depicts the coordinates of feasible region for energy consumption and delay. We take four points between energy consumption and delay to draw the feasible region. * Maximum energy consumption and maximum delay
* Minimum energy consumption and minimum delay

Figure 16: Feasible region for energy consumption and PAR using GEDPAR. Figure 8:0 Feasible region for energy consumption and throughput using GEDPAR. ### Feasible Region between Energy Consumption and Throughput Using E2 EVHR

The feasible region between energy consumption and throughput of the network is calculated by taking the following parameters into account. * Minimum energy consumption and maximum throughput

Four points are taken in order to draw the feasible region between energy consumption and throughput. Figure 18 shows the feasible region for energy consumption and throughput. ### Feasible Region between Energy Consumption and PAR Using E2 EVHR

Feasible region for energy consumption and PAR is shown in Figure 8:1 The four points for the feasible region of energy consumption and PAR are taken as:

* Minimum energy consumption and minimum PAR

Figure 8:2 Feasible region for energy consumption and delay using GEDPAR. Figure 8:3 Feasible region for energy consumption and throughput using E2 EVHR. ### Feasible Region between Energy Consumption and Delay Using E2 EVHR

Figure 20 depicts the feasible region for energy consumption and delay. We take four points between energy consumption and delay to draw the feasible region. * Minimum energy consumption and minimum delay

## 7 Conclusions

In current work, imbalance and unnecessary energy dissipation are avoided by covering the void hole in an efficient way. We proposed two routing protocols namely GEDPAR and E2 EVHR for void hole recovery. To show the efficiency of the proposed protocols, comparative analysis is performed with the existing state of the art protocols: GEDAR and LMPC. Simulations result show that GEDPAR outperforms GEDAR and LMPC in terms of throughput by the percentage of 13% and 37%. PAR of GEDAR, LMPC, E2 EVHR and GEDPAR is 0.6, 0.8, 0.93 and 0.95, respectively. While E2 EVHR also outperforms the counterparts in terms of throughput, PAR and energy efficiency. However, the proposed protocol (GEDPAR) is minimizing the energy consumption at the cost of affordable delay. In the future, we will explore and implement some other routing protocols to avoid void holes. To implement these techniques on a test bed for getting more precision in results will be the new

Figure 8:4 Feasible region for energy consumption and PAR using E2 EVHR. Figure 8:5 Feasible region for energy consumption and delay using E2 EVHR. direction of our research. An idea about the implementation of \"Internet of things\" is also under consideration. [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] proposed and implemented the novel schemes; [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] completed the mathematical modeling. All authors together refined the manuscript. Finally, [PERSON] and [PERSON] responded to the queries of the reviewers. This research received no external funding. The present research has been conducted by the Research Grant of Kwangwoon University in 2019. The authors declare no conflict of interest. ## Abbreviations

* UWSNs Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks RF Radio Frequency WSN Wireless Sensor Network PDR Packet Delivery Ratio GPS Global Positioning System GEDAR GEographic and opportunistic based Depth Adjustment Routing GEDPAR GEographic and opportunistic based Depth and Power Adjustment Routing E2 EVHR End to End Void Hole Recovery LMPC Layered Multi-path Power Control PAR Packet Acceptance Ratio

## References

* [PERSON] et al.