## 5 Simulation and Performance Analysis
### Simulation Example
#### 5.2.2 Effect of Varying \(N\) on Every Indicator
the node self-deployment algorithm, which is the problem that this paper considers. Therefore, in the simulation, the networks deployed by URSA and CDA use the corresponding topology formed by themselves when they operate. We use the energy consumption model in [36] to calculate the average energy consumption of the node of each round. According to [16], the diving speed of nodes is 2.4 m/min, and the power of nodes is 0.6 w.  
Figure 15 presents the comparison of network energy consumption for varying numbers of nodes. The figure shows that the energy consumption of the network deployment of both URSA and CDA increases with increasing the number of nodes. Nonetheless, the energy consumption of the network deployment of URSA is always below that of CDA. The energy consumption of network operation of the two algorithms also maintains within a certain value with increasing the number of nodes, but the energy consumption of the network operation of URSA is always below that of CDA. CDA selects the position of every node where the distance between the node and each of its basic nodes is \(R_{c}\), which makes the path to its cluster head node long. On the contrary, URSA deploys the cluster head nodes near the water surface and adjusts the positions of in-cluster nodes with the principle of minimizing their hop number, which makes the path in the cluster short and reduces the energy consumption of network deployment effectively. In the topology formed by URSA, the communication radius of the node that sends numerous data bags is small (_i.e._, the distance that those data bags transmit is relatively small), whereas the communication radius of the node that sends a few data bags is great. As a result, the energy loss during data bag transmission decreases, as well as the average node energy consumption of network operations in each round. Figure 16 indicates the balance comparison of network energy consumption for varying numbers of nodes. In the figure, the variance of the energy consumption of the network deployed by URSA is significantly below that by CDA owing to the network layout formed by URSA. In such a network layout, the density of nodes in the area close to the sink node is great, whereas the communication radius of the node in that area is small. Nodes, however, should forward considerable information. The situation far away from the sink node is the opposite, which makes the energy consumption of total nodes in the network more balanced. By contrast, using CDA, the communication radius of each node is fixed, and the distribution of nodes in the target area is irregular, thereby leading to the concentrated energy consumption on the nodes near the sink node. With the increasing number of nodes, the amount of information that nodes forward will further increase. Hence, the communication energy consumption of every node cannot be balanced by the different communication radii of nodes, and the variance of the network energy consumption of the two algorithms becomes significant with the increasing number of nodes. Figure 15: Comparison of energy consumption for varying numbers of sensor nodes (the unit of deployment energy consumption is \(10^{3}\) J).