# A Hybrid Unequal Clustering Based on Density with Energy Conservation in Wireless Nodes
## 3 The Proposed HCD Algorithm
### Protocol Performance
#### 3.2.1 Cluster Initialization
In Tables 4 and 5, the obtained results indicate that the proposed protocol could improve some parameters and be able to transmit more packets in the event of these parameters occurrence. It was emphasized that these nodes that do not have suitable energy status should not become a CH. Since CH node consumes more energy emphasizing this idea resulted in dividing energy consumption equally between the nodes during simulation time. The presented protocol helped reducing energy consumption in the network by deleting unusual control messages and reducing overhead; therefore, it resulted in a prolonged network lifetime. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Protocol**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FND (100 Nodes)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**10\% PND (90 Nodes)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**20\% PND (80 Nodes)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**HND (50 Nodes)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**LND (0 Nodes)**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & **Time** & **Packets** & **Time** & **Packets** & **Time** & **Packets** & **Time** & **Packets** & **Time** & **Packets** \\ \hline ECDC & 251.6 & 25156 & 465.7 & 45795 & 541.6 & 52307 & 648.8 & 59245 & 1133.8 & 65685 \\ HUCL & 273.7 & 27367 & 524.7 & 51201 & 638.4 & 60591 & 737.9 & 66555 & 866 & 68843 \\ EADUC-II & 394.2 & 39422 & 608.8 & 60138 & 662.1 & 64636 & 691.3 & 66365 & 719.4 & 66685 \\
**HCD** & **702.2** & **70205** & **881.9** & **86164** & **918.3** & **88646** & **964** & **90641** & **1047.3** & **91263** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Simulation results of stability period and lifetime for scenario 1. Figure 9: Routing and clustering graph for scenario 2. Table 6 shows the performance of the proposed protocol in comparison to the other three protocols. In order to evaluate it better, we showed the improvement percentage of above-mentioned criteria in Table 6. The measurement showed that the presented protocol increased network stability considerably. The ECDC protocol acts as distributed and dynamic, but the protocols of HUCL, EADUC-II, and the proposed protocol act as hybrid and distributed. When HCD was compared to HUCL, it increased the network stability to 156.5% and 320.8% in the first and second scenarios, respectively. We compared the proposed protocol with EADUC-II and noticed that this protocol had increased the network stability to 78.1% and 141.1% in the first and second scenarios, respectively. ### Number of Nodes Alive

In Table 7, the average number of live nodes is displayed. As it can be concluded from the Table 7, the average number of live nodes was more than 30% of all node counts which confirmed the maintained network stability as it was proposed by our algorithm. Figures 10 and 11 demonstrate the number of live nodes during simulation. The results showed that HCD had better performance compared to other protocols and increased the number of live nodes during simulation. It was due to the balance between the energy consumption of different nodes as it was proposed by the presented protocol and therefore, could prevent node death. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**The Network** & **Parameters** & **HCD V ECDC** & **HCD V HUCL** & **HCD V EADUC-II** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{**Scenarios 1**} & FND & 179.30\% & 156.50\% & 78.10\% \\  & 10\%PND & 89.30\% & 68\% & 44.80\% \\  & 20\%PND & 69.50\% & 43.80\% & 38.60\% \\  & HND & 48.50\% & 30.60\% & 39.40\% \\  & LND & \% \(-\)7.6 & 20.90\% & 45.50\% \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{**Scenarios 2**} & FND & 150.10\% & 320.80\% & 141.10\% \\  & 10\%PND & 69.80\% & 97.30\% & 63.70\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & 20\%PND & 52.40\% & 59.20\% & 47.20\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & HND & 36.30\% & 37.50\% & 42.20\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & LND & \% –15.2 & 27\% & 46.50\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: HCD protocol improvement in comparison with other protocols in simulation scenarios.