## 5 Experimental Results  
### Experimental Results for LEACH-LMNN, EESR-LMNN and Sub-Cluster LEACH-LMNN  
In this section, the simulation setup and results for the diverse proposals in this work are presented. The network was created in MATLAB (2009b), and the considered initialization parameters for the network are shown in Table 1. For energy calculation, the required energy model is shown in Figure 9. In this figure, the energy dissipation at transmission and receiver both are shown. To transmit a packet of K bits at a distance d, the energy consumption is given by Equations (21) and (22).  
\[E_{TX}=\left\{\begin{array}{l}K*E_{elc}+K*E_{fs}*d^{2}:d\leq d_{0}\\ K*E_{elc}+K*E_{mp}*d^{4}:d>d_{0}\end{array}\right. \tag{21}\]  
where \(d_{0}\) is evaluated as \(d_{0}=\sqrt{E_{fs}/E_{mp}}\)  
\[E_{RX}=K*E_{elc} \tag{22}\]  
Simulation results are shown in Figures 10-14. As indicated, in these experiments two different fields for monitoring of data have been considered: 100 m \(\times\) 100 m and 200 m \(\times\) 200 m. For this objective, the positions of the BS has been fixed to 50 m \(\times\) 50 m and 100 m \(\times\) 100 m, for 100 m \(\times\) 100 m and 200 m \(\times\) 200 m, respectively. During the initialization the BS generates a query for data from the network. Then the protocol issues a command to start the execution of the protocol for gathering data from the field. Here, a set of 100 nodes were used for sensing the data from both 100 m \(\times\) 100 m and 200 m \(\times\) 200 m fields. As it can be derived, a 200 m \(\times\) 200 m field is a much more extensive field for sensing than 100 m \(\times\) 100 m, but the number of sensor nodes was fixed to evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm and its dependency with this criterion. Figures 10 and 11 represent the network lifetimes for 100 m \(\times\) 100 m and 200 m \(\times\) 200 m, respectively. Both figures show that \(Sub-LEACH-LMNN\) protocol performed better in terms of energy in comparison to the other competing protocols, i.e., LEACH, LEACH-LMNN, Sub-LEACH, EESR and EESR-LMNN. In Figures 12 and 13, the end-to-end delay  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**S.No.** & **Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline
1 & Field Dimensions & 100 m \(\times\) 100 m/200 m \(\times\) 200 m \\
2 & Number of nodes & 100 \\
3 & Base Station & 50 m \(\times\) 50 m/100 m \(\times\) 100 m \\
4 & Battery energy & 0.5 Joules \\
5 & Energy model parameter: \(\epsilon_{fs}\) & 1 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-11}\) \\
6 & Energy model parameter: \(\epsilon_{mp}\) & 1.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-15}\) \\
7 & Electronics Energy: \(E_{ELc}\) & 50 nJ/bit \\
8 & Data packet length & 4000 bits \\
9 & Control packet length & 200 bits \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Initial parameters for the network.  
Figure 9: Energy model.  
evaluation for the various protocols is also presented, also showing the more efficient performance of \(Sub-LEACH-LMNN\) protocol for this criterion.  
Figure 11: Network lifetime (200 m \(\times\) 200 m) comparison among LEACH,LEACH-LMNN, EESR, EESR-LMNN, Sub-LEACH and Sub-LEACH-LMNN protocols.  
Figure 10: Network lifetime (100 m \(\times\) 100 m) comparison among LEACH,LEACH-LMNN, EESR, EESR-LMNN, Sub-LEACH and Sub-LEACH-LMNN protocols.  
Figure 12: End-to-end delay (100 m \(\times\) 100 m) comparison among LEACH, LEACH-LMNN, EESR, EESR-LMNN, Sub-LEACH and Sub-LEACH-LMNN protocols.  
Figure 13: End-to-end delay (200 m \(\times\) 200 m) comparison among LEACH, LEACH-LMNN, EESR, EESR-LMNN, Sub-LEACH and Sub-LEACH-LMNN protocols.