# Modified Echo State Network Enabled Dynamic Duty Cycle for Optimal Opportunistic Routing in EH-WSNs
## 5 Results and Discussion
### Impact of Varying Average Energy Harvesting Rate
Also, Table 5 shows the percentage improvement and average percentage improvements both. Next for the packet delivery ratio, the average percentage improvement of OOR is 14.70, 36.80, and 51.43 as compared to ESN-based, Max-SNR, and AOR, respectively. Further, we can show the performance comparison of OOR in a more detailed way in the following Figure 13.  
In Figure 13, the five different columns in the first part of the figure show the outcomes of the packet delivery ratio parameter with variation in average energy harvesting rates for each scheme,  
Figure 12: Packet delivery ratio comparison with varying average energy harvesting rates. Figure 13: Detailed performance reflection of OOR with packet delivery ratio parameter (second scenario). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Packet Delivery Ratio (\%) Comparison with Varying Average**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\% Improvement of OOR as Compared with Existing Schemes**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Energy Harvesting Rates**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\% Improvement of OOR**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\% Improvement of**} \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **Energy** \\ **Harvestiging** \\ **Rate (mW)** \\ \end{tabular} & **AOR** & **Max-SNR** & **ESN** & **OOR** & \begin{tabular}{c} **\% Gain of OOR** \\ **Compared with ESN** \\ **Max-SNR** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **\% Gain of OOR** \\ **Compared with ESN** \\ **with AOR** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **\% Gain of OOR** \\ **Compared to** \\ **Max-SNR** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **\% Improvement of** \\ **COMPed to** \\ **with AOR** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
20 & 20 & 30 & 50 & 61.25 & 18.37 & 51.02 & 67.35 \\
40 & 24.2 & 38.25 & 55.4 & 66.25 & 16.38 & 42.26 & 63.47 \\
60 & 37.2 & 46.25 & 61.95 & 72 & 13.96 & 35.76 & 48.33 \\
80 & 44.9 & 53.45 & 68.15 & 79.2 & 13.95 & 32.51 & 43.31 \\
100 & 58.8 & 69.8 & 80.25 & 90 & 10.83 & 22.44 & 34.67 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Average \% Improvement \(\rightarrow\)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**14.70**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**36.80**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**51.43**} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Descriptive observations of OOR performance in terms of packet delivery ratio (second scenario). respectively. For example, consider different columns of the OOR scheme in the first part of the figure; the second column represents the value of the packet delivery ratio parameter as 66.25 at 40 mW average energy harvesting rate whereas the fifth column depicts the value of 90 at 100 mW average energy harvesting rate. In the second part of the figure, the five different columns show the percentage improvement, and the sixth column depicts the average percentage improvement. Figure 14 illustrates the comparison of throughput of the proposed OOR scheme and existing schemes. The analysis demonstrates that the throughput of the proposed OOR scheme is higher than the existing ESN-based, Max-SNR and AOR schemes respectively. Here also from Figure 14, it is noticeable that as average energy harvesting rate increases, throughput decreases, and this is because the probability of packet error is proportional to the increase in the number of nodes. Though in this scenario, the number of nodes is fixed as 500 when 500 nodes start communication, then the probability of packet error start increasing and result in decreasing throughput. Next, Table 6 depicts the performance of the OOR scheme with variation in the average energy harvesting rates. Also, Table 6 shows the percentage improvement and average percentage improvements both. Last for throughput, the above table reveals that the average percentage improvement of OOR is 30.35, 48.76, and 63.15 as compared to ESN-based, Max-SNR, and AOR, respectively. Further, we can show the performance comparison of OOR in a more detailed way in the following Figure 15.