## 5 Performance Evaluation and Discussion
### Simulation Comparison of Multi-Hop Proposed Model  
Figure 14 shows the analytical analysis of the average percentage of CHs generated during the ground-based network operations. Our proposed and MH-proposed protocols show maximum stability in cluster formulation by maintaining the required percentage of CHs throughout the network operation. As compared to proposed protocols, all other existing distributed routing protocols show higher fluctuations of CHs generation. As network operation goes on, the number of alive nodes decreases rapidly, so all the protocols face clustering instability, but the proposed protocols successfully adjusted the desired percentage of the CHs.  
Figure 15 shows the residual energy of CHs during the network operation as we can observe that all the compared routing protocols have initial energy as residual energy at the start of the network. With the passage of network rounds, the residual energy starts decreasing. It reaches zero at the end of all the protocols' network lifetime. The proposed protocols show maximum resistance and maintain even communication responsibilities among all the nodes to keep reasonable residual energy resources. The proposed protocols achieve maximum network lifetime due to better load-balancing among all the nodes.  
Figure 16 shows the average end-to-end delay of all compared routing protocols over different network area parameters. These simulation outcomes indicate the drastic performance degradation of all the single-hop routing protocols such as LEACH, LEACH-C,  
Figure 13: Performance evaluation of the proposed routing technique in terms of lifetime with other routing approaches.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Protocol** & **First Node Died** & **Last Node Died** & **Packets Sent** \\ \hline Proposed Model & 3098 & 10,004 & 36,112 \\ HADCC & 2256 & 8039 & 24,092 \\ TDEEC & 1142 & 3841 & 32,815 \\ TSEP & 1436 & 4245 & 24,283 \\ TEN & 1226 & 5431 & 12,283 \\ LEACH-C & 1225 & 2170 & 14,704 \\ LEACH & 976 & 1448 & 12,015 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Performance evaluation of the proposed technique.  
T-SEP, TEEN, and TDEEC once we increase the network. As compared to other single-hop routing protocols proposed model provides better results due to the hybrid nature of cluster formulation. The closer nodes follow centralized instructions; meanwhile, the out-circle nodes abide by the distributed property of CHs generating. The available CHs provide better management for collecting member nodes' data and transmitting effectively to BS. However, the proposed MH-Proposed model provides more stable results as the network area increases.  
Figure 17 indicates the average end-to-end delay of all compared routing protocols over different network densities of 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, and 500. Meanwhile, we keep the network area of 100 m \(\times\) 100 m. All the single-hop routing protocols remain stable due to higher network density, resulting in a higher percentage of CHs. A higher percentage of CHs provides stable end-to-end delay during the network operation. Meanwhile, the proposed MH-proposed faces higher performance degradation due to the multi-hoping mechanism. This result indicates that multi-hopping is not suitable for smaller network areas.  
Figure 14: Average percentage of CHs generation during network operation.  
Figure 15: The average residual energy of CHs during network operation.