## 3 Proposed Fires Monitoring and Detection Framework
### The Proposed Sensor Deployment Scheme
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Value** \\ \hline Number of node & 121 \\ Channel type & Channel/WirelessChannel \\ Radio propagation & Propagation/TwoRayGround \\ Physical type & Phy/WirelessPhy/802\_15\_4 \\ MAC type & Mac/802\_15\_4 \\ Interface queue type & Queue/DropPail/PriQueue \\ Link layer type & \\ Antenna pattern & Antenna/OmniAntenna \\ Frequency & 2.4 GHz \\ Interface queue length & 50 \\ Initial energy of node & 5J \\ Transmission Energy (TXE) & 1 mW \\ Receiving Energy (RXE) & 1 mW \\ CSThresh\_ & 1.10765 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-11}\) Hz \\ RXThresh\_ & 1.10765 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-11}\) Hz \\ Packet size & 70 bytes \\ Transport layer protocol & User Datagram Protocol (UDP) \\ Data traffic type & Constant Bit Rate (CBR) \\ The topology width & 1000 \\ The topology length & 1000 \\ Simulation duration & 100 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Network parameters used in simulation. ### Results and Discussion

The parameters used in performance evaluation are the energy consumption and fire reaction delay. Because our framework consists of three proposed schemes, we first evaluate each scheme separately and then we give the evaluation on the overall framework. #### 4.2.1 Performance Evaluation on the Proposed Sensor Deployment Scheme

In this subsection, we describe the effects of our proposed sensor deployment scheme on energy consumption and fire reaction delay. To validate that the proposed sensor deployment scheme has a good performance, we compare the proposed scheme with regular deployment. Figure 2 presents the relationship between remaining energy level and the average distance between sensor nodes. Simulation results show that regular deployment performs a better performance compared to the proposed deployment at each different average distance between sensors. This is because even though some sensor nodes in our proposed deployment may be closer to a cluster head than in regular deployment and will consume less energy, there are usually some distant nodes which will consume high energy and hence outweigh the advantage obtained from close-by nodes. As expected, we can see that as the average distance between neighboring nodes increases, both schemes increase the energy consumption. Figure 3 gives the relationship of average distance between a fire ignition location and the nearest sensor node against the average distance between sensor nodes. It is obvious that the average distance between a fire ignition location and the nearest sensor node is larger in the proposed deployment scheme. This suggests that the proposed scheme has the longer fire reaction delay. This is because the proposed scheme adopts the random deployment in which the distances among nodes are distributed non-uniformly. Additionally, with the increases of average distance between sensor nodes, the average distance between fire ignition location and nearest sensor node increases as well in both schemes. This indicates that in a certain area, the number of sensor nodes deployed has important effects on the fire reaction delay. Figure 1: Simulation topology. Figure 4 provides the relationship between required fire reaction time and the distance between fire ignition location and the node position. We define fire reaction time as the time between a fire

Figure 3: Average distance between fire ignition and nearest sensor node of regular deployment and the proposed deployment schemes. Figure 2: Remaining energy level of regular deployment and the proposed deployment schemes. starting and the sink station receiving a fire warming message. It can be observed from Figure 4 that it takes more than 13 min for fire reaction time when the average distance between sensors is larger than 20 m. It also suggests that, to react to a fire within 6 min, the sensor nodes should be deployed in such a manner that the average distance among each node should be less than 10 m. Again, the proposed scheme has a little bit longer fire reaction delay than the regular deployment scheme.