# An Energy Balance Clustering Routing Protocol for Intra-Body Wireless Nanosensor Networks
## 3 Clustering Routing Framework
### Clustering and Cluster Head Updating
### Proportion of Control Overhead

It can be seen from Figure 14 that the proportion of control overhead of the EBCR and MH-LEACH is always higher than that of SFR. Obviously, the control overhead of SFR is lower than that of clustering protocols. In the multi-hop forwarding process of the MH-LEACH protocol, a route needs to be established, which causes a certain control overhead. When the distance between the source node and the control node is small, the routing process of the MH-LEACH protocol is relatively simple, and the control overhead is small. As the distance increases, the process of establishing the route by the MH-LEACH protocol becomes complicated, and the control overhead also increases. Furthermore, because the EBCR protocol stratifies the network before clustering, the control overhead is slightly larger than MH-LEACH. However, it is also through this hierarchical clustering method that the communication load and energy consumption of the nano nodes are minimized while ensuring the successful transmission of data packets. \[h^{\prime}=argmax(S_{k}) \tag{15}\]8 Comparison of proportion of control overhead. \[h^{\prime}=argmax(S_{k}) \tag{15}\]9 Comparison of the data packet transmission success rate (generation intervals). ### Average End-to-End Delay

Figure 15 compares the end-to-end delays of the three protocols. In general, the average end-to-end delay is reduced as the packet generation interval increases. This is because when the packet generation interval becomes larger, the number of packets arriving in the node buffer per unit time becomes smaller, and the time at which the packet waits for transmission in the buffer area is shortened, thereby reducing the end-to-end delay. Moreover, when the packet generation interval is large (\(\geq\)7 s), the average end-to-end delay of the three protocols is relatively close. In addition, the end-to-end delay of the route established by the EBCR protocol is smaller than the other two routes. ### Effective Throughput

Figure 16 compares the effective throughput of the three protocols. As the interval of data packet generation increases, the effective throughput of the three protocols also decreases. This is because as the interval of data packet generation increases, the number of data bits flowing into the network per unit time decreases. The size of the effective throughput is related to the transmission success rate and the transmission rate of the selected link. According to the previous analysis, the EBCR protocol has a good data packet transmission success rate and a low delay. It can be seen that the EBCR protocol enables the iWNSNs to exhibit a very good network performance. \[w(m)=1-\frac{1}{e^{-\kappa m}} \tag{16}\]0 Comparison of average end-to-end delay. ## 6 Conclusions

In this paper, an energy balance clustering routing protocol (EBCR) is proposed for the intra-body nanosensor nodes with low computational and processing capabilities, short communication range, and limited energy storage. This protocol reduces the energy load of the nano-nodes by adopting a new layered clustering method, reduces the number of member nodes in the cluster, reduces the data transmission distance of the nodes in the cluster and enables the nano-nodes to transmit data to the cluster head node in a hop within the cluster. In addition, by continuously updating the cluster head node, the node with higher residual energy is selected as the cluster head, which prevents the cluster head node from exhausting energy due to frequent data forwarding, and can also balance the energy consumption in the network. Finally, the cluster head nodes transmit data to the nano control node through multi-hop routing. By establishing a link cost function, the next hop is selected to compromise between distance and channel capacity, ensuring successful data packet transmission and reducing energy consumption.