## 4 Performance Evaluation
### Protocol Performance Evaluation Result and Analysis  
To evaluate the performance of the proposed protocol, the number of surviving nodes per round was compared and analyzed for direct communication, LEACH protocol, and proposed technique. As shown in Figure 7, after performing 200 rounds, 39 nodes, 20% of all nodes, survive. In contrast, in the proposed protocol and LEACH, more than 95% of all nodes survive after 200 rounds. After 400 rounds, the proposed protocol shows that more than 90% of the 181 nodes survived, while for LEACH, 47% of the 94 nodes survived, indicating that the proposed protocol survived by 43% or more compared to LEACH. This is because the proposed protocol up to 400 rounds uses energy more evenly and efficiently at the sensor node compared to LEACH. Surviving nodes are the same number in the  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Environment Variable** & **Value** \\ \hline BS (Base Station) & (210, 210) \\ \hline Number of Nodes & 200 \\ \hline Initial energy/node & 20 J \\ \hline \(E_{dec}\) & 50 nJ/bit \\ \hline \(E_{fs}\) & 7 nJ/bit/m\({}^{2}\) \\ \hline \(E_{amp}\) & 100 pl/bit/m\({}^{2}\) \\ \hline \(E_{np}\) & 0.0013 pJ/bit/m\({}^{2}\) \\ \hline Control Data Size & 10 Byte (80 bit) \\ \hline Packet Size & 250 Byte (2000 bit) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Performance evaluation environment variables.  
proposed protocol and LEACH at 700 rounds, where both measures cannot be significant because only 3% of the nodes survive and cannot perform the services of WSN.  
The singularity is that after 700 rounds, the direct communication method survives with more nodes than LEACH or the proposed method. The reason is that as shown in Figure 8, a few sensor nodes located close to the BS do not consume much energy due to the relatively small distance when transmitting data to the BS. However, these are only 4.5% (9) of the surviving sensor nodes, and in this situation, the WSN service cannot be smoothly performed.  
Figure 9 shows the average energy consumption of each node per round. After 50 rounds, the proposed protocol consumes 30-40% less energy than the average LEACH per node, and the trend continues, and after 300 rounds, the average consumes more than 30% less energy per node than LEACH. This means that the sensor nodes in the proposed protocol use energy more uniformly and efficiently than LEACH. After 700 rounds, the average energy consumption per node shows near-similar energy consumption in both the proposed protocol and LEACH. At this point, both protocols are alive with only sensor  
Figure 8: Distribution of surviving nodes among direct communication nodes after 700 rounds.  
Figure 7: Survival nodes per round.  
nodes of less than 5% and therefore WSN's services cannot be performed and cannot be considered. In addition, the proposed protocol consumes 70% to 80% less energy than direct communication per node up to 200 rounds, and the difference gradually becomes smaller. This is because in direct communication, most nodes consume energy in the first 200 rounds, and more than 80% of the nodes afterwards do not work properly.  
Figure 10 shows the residual energy distribution of all sensor nodes after 400 rounds of communication by applying the proposed protocol. When a cluster is located closer to the BS, the residual energy of the sensor nodes existing in the cluster decreases. In the proposed protocol, CHs located at a distance from the BS transmit data via a CH adjacent to the BS without transmitting data directly to the BS to reduce energy consumption due to long-distance data transmission. That is, nodes in the cluster adjacent to the BS consume a large amount of energy for relay transmission of data transmitted from the other different CHs to the BS.