# An Energy Balance Clustering Routing Protocol for Intra-Body Wireless Nanosensor Networks
## 3 Clustering Routing Framework
### Clustering and Cluster Head Updating
We choose LEACH and MH-LEACH to compare rather than SFR in this part because SFR has an energy void and there is no need to compare its network lifetime to EBCR. According to Figures 9 and 10, we can see that the EBCR protocol prolongs the death time of the first node in the network and improves the stable transmission time of the data in the network. This is because EBCR preferentially selects the cluster with higher residual energy when selecting the cluster head node while LEACH and MH-LEACH randomly select the cluster head, causing the cluster head node to die prematurely. In addition, both EBCR and MH-LEACH adopt multi-hop forwarding, which can well balance the energy consumption in the network and effectively prevent the node from exhausting energy due to massive data transmission. In general, the EBCR protocol can well balance network energy consumption and extend network lifetime. ### Average Residual Energy

Figure 11 shows the average residual energy of nodes in the network. As same to the comparation of the network lifetime, we choose LEACH and MH-LEACH to compare rather than SFR in this part because SFR has an energy void and there is no need to compare its average residual energy to EBCR. The percentage of residual energy at each time for the three algorithms can be compared from \[h^{\prime}=argmax(S_{k}) \tag{15}\]4 At the same time, the average residual energy of the EBCR is always higher than that of LEACH and MH-LEACH. This shows that the EBCR protocol is more efficient in saving network energy and improving node energy utilization. ### Data Packet Transmission Success Rate

Figure 12 shows the comparison of the success rate of data packet transmission in the aspect of the distance. With the increase of the distance between nodes, the transmission success rate of three protocols is decreasing. This is because there is the possibility of packet loss during the frequent

\[h^{\prime}=argmax(S_{k}) \tag{15}\]5 Comparison of average remaining energy. \[h^{\prime}=argmax(S_{k}) \tag{15}\]6 Comparison of the time of first node’s death. forwarding of data. However, the transmission success rate of EBCR and SFR is always kept at a higher level. When the communication distance is greater than 4 mm, the data packet transmission success rate of MH-LEACH decreases, this is because when the communication range increases, the cluster head close to the control node needs to frequently participate in data forwarding. Furthermore, the cluster head update of MH-LEACH is random. When some nodes with less energy are selected as cluster heads and participate in data forwarding, data packets are lost due to exhausted energy, which also reflects the advantages of EBCR's cluster head update mechanism. Figure 13 shows the comparison of the success rate of data packet transmission in the aspect of data packet generation interval. As can be seen from the figure, the packet transmission success rate of the EBCR protocol is always higher than that of the other two protocols. This is because the protocol ensures the path from the source node to the destination node through hierarchical clustering and cluster head update. The correct forwarding of data packets improves the reliability of the network. In SFR, due to the flooding mechanism, a reliable path can always be found between the source node and the destination node to ensure the success rate of data packet transmission. However, because of this, the frequent participation of nodes in data forwarding also causes the energy consumption of nodes in the network. When many nodes die, it will affect the success rate of data packet transmission. For the MH-LEACH protocol, as the network load increases, the cluster head nodes close to the control node die due to frequent participation in forwarding, resulting in a sharp drop in the success of data packet transmission. \[h^{\prime}=argmax(S_{k}) \tag{15}\]7 Comparison of the data packet transmission success rate (distance).