## 3 The Proposed Model
### Design of WMAO Algorithm
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{**Time Steps (Rounds)**} \\ \hline
**Dead Nodes** & **LEACH** & **CE-EC** & **SEED** & **NEH-CP** & **HCEHUC** & **WMAO-EAR** \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{**Nodes = 100**} \\ \hline First Node Dead & 466 & 1000 & 990 & 780 & 2563 & 1500 \\ \hline Half Node Dead & 531 & 4328 & 3269 & 2251 & 4525 & 4750 \\ \hline Last Node Dead & 575 & 5230 & 5072 & 4500 & 5140 & 5432 \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{**Nodes = 300**} \\ \hline First Node Dead & 528 & 1091 & 1610 & 1814 & 2651 & 2786 \\ \hline Half Node Dead & 616 & 2088 & 3566 & 4221 & 4562 & 4647 \\ \hline Last Node Dead & 715 & 2736 & 4327 & 5017 & 5217 & 5387 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Lifetime analysis of WMAO-EAR approach with existing algorithms under NC of 100 and 300. Table 2 presents a detailed energy utilization (EU) examination of the WMAO-EAR method with other approaches. Figure 5 provides the initial EU inspection of the WMAO-EAR model with compared methods on NC of 100. The figure shows that the WMAO-EAR model achieved EU in the latter rounds of execution. For example, with 0.25 J energy, the WMAO-EAR method ran to 2722 rounds, whereas the LEACH, CE-EC, SEED, NEH-CP, and HCEHUC models executed for 340, 1436, 2067, 2445, and 2649 rounds, respectively. Concurrently, with 0.5 J energy, the WMAO-EAR approach ran to 5213 rounds, whereas the LEACH, CE-EC, SEED, NEH-CP, and HCEHUC approaches executed for 702, 2748, 4287, 4985, and 5211 rounds, respectively. Figure 4: Lifetime analysis of WMAO-EAR approach under NC of 300. Figure 3: Lifetime analysis of WMAO-EAR approach under NC of 100. Figure 6 offers the initial EU review of the WMAO-EAR technique with compared methods on NC of 300. The figure shoes that the WMAO-EAR approach obtained EU in the latter rounds of execution. For example, with 0.25 J energy, the WMAO-EAR algorithm runs to 2837 rounds, whereas the LEACH, CE-EC, SEED, NEH-CP, and HCEHUC approaches execute 558, 1656, 2161, 2676, and 2661 rounds, respectively. Concurrently, with 0.5 J energy, the WMAO-EAR methodology runs to 5423 rounds, whereas the LEACH, CE-EC, SEED, NEH-CP, and HCEHUC techniques execute 846, 2815, 4390, 4997, and 5259 rounds, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Time Steps (Rounds)**} \\ \hline
**Initial Energy (J)** & **LEACH** & **CE-EC** & **SEED** & **NEH-CP** & **HCEHUC** & **WMAO-EAR** \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{**Nodes = 100**} \\ \hline
0.25 & 340 & 1436 & 2067 & 2445 & 2649 & 2722 \\ \hline
0.5 & 702 & 2748 & 4287 & 4985 & 5211 & 5213 \\ \hline
0.75 & 765 & 4136 & 5240 & 6101 & 7788 & 7862 \\ \hline
1 & 1166 & 4825 & 7499 & 8211 & 10362 & 10411 \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{**Nodes = 300**} \\ \hline
0.25 & 558 & 1656 & 2161 & 2676 & 2661 & 2837 \\ \hline
0.5 & 846 & 2815 & 4390 & 4997 & 5259 & 5423 \\ \hline
0.75 & 966 & 4261 & 5439 & 6192 & 7804 & 8082 \\ \hline
1 & 1249 & 5138 & 7570 & 8415 & 10376 & 10585 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: EU analysis of WMAO-EAR approach with existing algorithms under NC of 100 and 300. Figure 5: EU analysis of WMAO-EAR approach under NC of 100. Table 3 provides a detailed NOAN evaluation of the WMAO-EAR model with other existing models. Figure 7 highlights the comparative NOAN inspection of the WMAO-EAR model. With 2000 rounds, the NOAN offered by the WMAO-EAR model is 99, whereas the CE-EC, SEED, NEH-CP, and HCEHUC models obtained reduced NOAN of 98, 93, 79, and 56, respectively. Likewise, with 2500 rounds, the NOAN presented by the WMAO-EAR approach is 98, whereas the CE-EC, SEED, NEH-CP, and HCEHUC techniques attained reduced NOAN of 97, 78, 46, and 19, respectively. With 3000 rounds, the NOAN presented by the WMAO-EAR algorithm is 95, whereas the CE-EC, SEED, NEH-CP, and HCEHUC methodologies attained reduced NOAN of 92, 59, 29, and 0, respectively.