## 4 Results and Discussion
### Performance Analysis  
A developed methodology comparison to existing schemes is shown first. The two existing techniques used to assess the introduced methodology are TEEN and PEGASIS. This assessment is carried out in two separate circumstances relating to the base station's location. The BS is located in the center of the area used to assess short-range communications, which is referred to as the first scenario. The BS is placed outside of the region where long-range transmissions are analyzed.  
The following figures show the performance analyses of the proposed method with two existing routing protocols.  
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the rate of decrease of alive nodes of proposed method compared to existing methods. Figures 6 and 7 show that the proposed method has very less average energy consumption compared with TEEN, PEGASIS methods with a network size of 100 nodes and 150 nodes. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the proposed method network lifetime in terms of rounds with conventional methods. The graph shows a good improvement in the network lifetime of the proposed method compared with existing methods of network size 100 and 150 nodes.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Value** \\ \hline Number of sensor nodes & 100 and 150 \\ \hline Sensing range & 250 m \(\times\) 250 m \\ \hline Initial energy & 0.5 J \\ \hline Base station & 1 \\ \hline Packet size & 4000 bits \\ \hline Number of CH & 4 \\ \hline Number of the source node & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Simulation Parameters.  
Figure 4: Number of rounds vs. number of alive nodes (100 nodes).  
Figure 5: Number of rounds vs. number of alive nodes (150 nodes).  
Figure 6: Energy consumption with 100 nodes.  
Figure 8: Number of nodes vs. network lifetime with 100 nodes.  
Figure 7: Energy consumption with 150 nodes.  
Figure 9: Number of nodes vs. network lifetime with 150 nodes.  
Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the decrease in routing overhead compared to conventional methods with the proposed technique, in terms of rounds. The packet delivery ration simulation results of TEEN, PEGASIS, and proposed methods with 100 and 150 nodes are shown in Figures 12 and 13. Figures 14 and 15 depict the comparison of the proposed technique with existing techniques in terms of packet drop ratio with 100 and 150 nodes. Figures 16 and 17 show the throughput performance of the proposed method with conventional methods. The graphs show a greater improvement in throughput with the increase in sensor nodes.  
Figure 12: Number of nodes vs. packet delivery ratio (100 nodes).  
Figure 13: Number of nodes vs. Packet delivery ratio (150 nodes).  
Figure 14: Number of nodes vs. packet drop ratio (100 nodes).  
Figure 15: Number of nodes vs. packet drop ratio with 150 nodes.  
The simulation results indicate that the proposed strategy outperforms established methods. The average energy consumption determines the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed method, no of alive nodes, routing overhead, packet delivery ratio, packet drop ratio, network lifetime, and throughput.  
Figure 16: Number of nodes vs. Throughput (100 nodes).  
Figure 17: Number of nodes vs. throughput (150 nodes).