# Adaptive Energy Balanced Routing Strategy for Wireless Reschargeable Sensor Networks
## 6 Simulation and Evaluation
### Comparison with Two Other Strategies  
In order to verify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, our charging strategy combined with routing algorithm [11] is used as the comparison algorithm 1 (hereinafter referred to as the DCA algorithm), and the charging strategy [29] combined with routing algorithm [11] is used as the comparison algorithm 2 (hereinafter referred to as the GCA algorithm). The routing strategy DEBR [11] chooses the next hop node according to the location and energy of the node, and achieves a balance between reducing the total energy consumption of the network and reducing the energy consumption of a single node; however, it ignores the impact of charging stage on the routing selection. Therefore, the DCA algorithm is compared with our algorithm to verify the performance of the routing part of the algorithm. The GCA algorithm uses the charging strategy of literature [29] to recharge nodes, so as to balance the energy of the nodes. The route algorithm of [29] only considers the location of nodes to select the next hop node, which ignores the influence of node energy on routing strategy. Thus, the routing path of each node is fixed in each round, which leads to the persistent energy consumption of nodes with high energy consumption and greatly reduces the network lifetime. Moreover, its average hop count is high, and simulation results of algorithm in reference [29] are not conducive to highlighting the performance characteristics of each algorithm. Therefore, the GCA algorithm also uses the DEBR strategy to select the next hop for the nodes, which minimizes the overall energy consumption of the network while taking full account of the differences of node energy. The GCA algorithm and DCA algorithm are compared to verify the performance of our charging  
Figure 4: **(a)** The impact of network size on network lifetime; (b) the impact of network size on network balance; (c) the impact of network size on average hops. strategy. When the network size and charging cycle change, the network lifetime, network balance and average hops are observed and compared. The simulation results are shown in Figures 5 and 6. In Figure 5, we set \(Tc=10\), and the network size varies from 200 to 1000 nodes. As shown in Figure 5a, our algorithm shows significant improvements in prolonging network lifetime by an average of 25% compared to DCA and 30% compared to GCA. On the one hand, our routing strategy takes nodes' charging characteristics into consideration, and it makes good use of nodes with high charging efficiency to reduce the routing hop number. It is reasonable that in WRSN our routing performs better than DEBR in reducing the average hop number, which can be seen from the Figure 5c. On the other hand, the charging strategy changes the location of the charging point to improve overall charging efficiency, which makes it perform the best in network balance. In Figure 6, we set network size to be 200 nodes. And the charging cycle is changed from 0 to 20 with step size of 2. As the charging cycle prolongs, the advantage of our algorithm gradually emerges. When \(Tc=20\), the network lifetime of our algorithm is almost two to three times that of the other two strategies. Compared to DEBR, our routing algorithm pays more attention to reducing energy consumption and hops by making high-charging efficiency nodes undertake more forwarding tasks. This brings problems when the charging cycle is small, as it is unable to allocate more time for those nodes. Furthermore, their low energy state will influence the network balance. Thus, when \(Tc=1\sim 6\), our network balance is a little worse. When \(Tc\) becomes larger, our charging strategy can promote the routing effect, and in turn the network balance is better. When \(Tc=0\), the performance index is the same in DCA and GCA for the DEBR. Moreover, Figure 6c reflects our routing performance  
Figure 5: (**a**) Network lifetime versus network size; (**b**) network balance versus network size; (**c**) average hops versus network size. is a little better.