# RARZ: Ring-Zone Based Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks
## 4 Simulation and Results
### Results and Discussion  
Table 2 shows the parameters used in the simulations. For simulation, initially 100 nodes were randomly distributed in the network field with dimensions 600 m \(\times\) 600 m. The performance of RARZ has been compared with AODV, Flooding, and AIMRP on the basis of the following parameters:  
1. Average energy consumption (to check the average energy consumption in the system as time increments using the First Order Radio Model (FORM) model);
2. Average delay (latency) (average time required to transmit a packet from source to final destination (BS));
3. Average hop count (this parameter actually counts the total number of hops while sending packets using the RARZ scheme over time in the network w.r.t other protocols);
4. Delivery ratio (to define this parameter for evaluation requires that the total number of successfully transmitted and received packets in the network after any given time);
5. Number of nodes still alive over time (through this parameter we can easily check the number of alive and dead nodes over time, and observe the overall network lifetime as time increments). Figure 7 shows the average energy consumption in the system as a function of time. According to the radio model used in the simulation, the energy of a node is depleted only upon the sending and reception of packets. It can be observed from the graph that with Flooding 3000 mJ of energy had \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Type** & **Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Network} & Field dimension & 600 \(\times\) 600 m \\  & Initial energy of each node & 3 J/battery \\  & Location of each node & Random \\  & Number of rings/zones & 10 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Application} & Data packet size & 100 bytes \\  & Broadcast packet size & 25 bytes \\  & Packet header size & 25 bytes \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Radio Model} & \(\mathbf{E_{elc}}\) & 50 nJ/bit \\  & \(\mathbf{E_{amp}}\) & 0.13 nJ/bit \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Simulation setup and parameters. been consumed in 600 s as opposed to the AODV, which consumes the same amount in 800 s. In other words, the per-second energy consumptions are about 5 mJ/s and 3.7 mJ/s for Flooding and AODV, respectively. With AIMRP the per-second average comes down to approximately 2.7 mJ/s, which is still higher than the 2.2 mJ/s observed for RARZ. Hence, RARZ performs better compared to AODV, Flooding, and AIMRP. In Figure 8, we compared the protocols based on the number of nodes alive over a certain time period. RARZ again performs better than AODV, Flooding, and AIMRP because in RARZ the energy consumption is evenly distributed and only the nodes at the highest energy level are selected for routing. The average latency of the four protocols is plotted against the number of nodes in the network in Figure 9. RARZ has the least delay amongst the protocols and, even with 100 nodes, the delay is around 0.4 s in contrast to AIMRP, AODV, and Flooding with delays of about 0.6, 1, and 1.5 s, respectively. RARZ outperforms the others because it is based on the minimization of the number of hops and consequently end-to-end delay. Figure 8: Number of nodes alive over time. Figure 7: Average energy consumption over time. Figure 10 shows the total number of data messages successfully delivered to the base station over a certain time period. RARZ outperforms AIMRP, Flooding, and AODV because it distributes the energy consumption evenly in the network. In RARZ, the average hop count is lower than in AIMRP, as shown in Figure 11. This may be attributed to the fact that, in AIMRP, there is a maximum probability for a node within the immediate ring, of the sender, is selected without any energy considerations. However, RARZ selects nodes that are closer to the BS while considering the residual energy. This results in a lower average hop count compared to AIMRP, AODV, and Flooding.