## 4 Proposed Protocol
### MST and Chain Construction Period
This means that if we run more simulation scenarios, the achievement results cannot also be outside of the standard deviation curve; we get the value of \(\chi\) deviation ratio with LEACH-C 6.8% (\(nscen=17\)), PEGASIS 5.6% (\(nscen=19\)), PEGCP of 5.4% (\(nscen=20\)) at the time the network has 99% of the node death. Due to the rotation of CH role and selection of CHNs based on the suitable criteria parameters, the proposed protocol obtains a better balance of energy consumption than the three existing protocols and, as a result, extends the NL. In Figure 8, the total energy drained by all nodes of four protocols is shown during each round. From these simulation results, we can see that EEGT consumes less energy than the three other protocols because EEGT avoids communication over long distances by establishing multi-hop data transmission routes intra-cellularly and inter-cellularly. Furthermore, in LEACH-C, PEGASIS, and PEGCP, most of the CHNs transmit data packets directly to the base station. Meanwhile, EEGT only allows super-CHs nodes to forward data packets to the sink device with a \"short-link\" and the other nodes will transmit the fused data packets in the path base on the ant algorithm. So, EEGT achieves better energy efficiency and improves the network lifespan compared to LEACH-C, PEGASIS, and PEGCP. Figure 9 shows the ratio of dead nodes according to the network lifespan (rounds), in which the LEACH-C and PEGASIS have a ratio of 5% dead nodes at approximately the 410 th and 420 th round and stop working at the 1400 th and 1440 th round, respectively. Meanwhile, the PEGCP and EEGT protocols work with 95% of the nodes alive to the 550 th and 800 th round and stop working at the 1680 th and 1700 th round, respectively. Figure 8: Total energy consumption by sensors in a homogeneous network. Figure 7: The ratio of the number of alive sensors per network lifespan (rounds) in the homogeneous network. Figure 10 illustrates the ratio of data packets that were successfully delivered to the sink device at the end of the simulation of 20 different scenarios with EEGT, the average of the standard deviation ratio \(\chi=3.1\%\) indicated by the red lines when the location of the sink device is being changed. The three other LEACH-C, PEGASIS, and PEGCP protocols achieve the average standard deviation ratio of \(\chi=3.6\%\) of 18 different scenarios, \(\chi=4.2\%\) of 18 different scenarios, and \(\chi=3.0\%\) of 17 different scenarios, respectively. There is a stable decline in the number of data packets the sink device receives when we move it from the initial point (49, 175) to the farthest point (49, 300) in the simulation area. However, the ratio of the number of data packets received by the sink device of our proposed protocol is improved by approximately 40%, 20%, and 15% compared with LEACH-C, PEGASIS, and PEGCP protocols, respectively. This is because EEGT achieved the balance of energy consumption among sensor nodes in the network; the more balanced the energy consumption, the greater the energy efficiency. Figure 10: The ratio of data packets received at the sink device with different locations in a homogeneous network. Figure 9: The ratio of dead sensors per network lifespan (rounds) in a homogeneous network. Furthermore, Table 2 presents the simulation results in terms of the percentage of dead nodes and energy efficiency (EE) with the size of different rounds (\(t_{round}\)) from 10 to 700 s for WSNs in a homogeneous model.