## 4 Experimental Results
### Computational Efficiency  
The computing efficiency of the protocols was measured in terms of their communication cost (CC) and communication overhead (CO). The packet loss ratio (PLR) determines the communication cost (CC) of a network as a result of congestion and frequent route disconnection, and it is expressed as:  
\[Communication\ cost=1-\frac{P_{r}}{P_{g}} \tag{16}\]  
where \(P_{r}\) refers to the energy consumed by a node when transmitting data to another node or a base station. \(P_{g}\) refers to the energy consumed by a node when it receives data from another node or the base station. The average communication cost between the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Node Counts** & **LEACH** & **EECRP** & **FEEC-IIR** & **CL-IoT** & **SFO-CORP** \\ \hline
100 & 4 & 3.8 & 3.5 & 3 & 2 \\
200 & 5 & 4.8 & 4.6 & 4.2 & 3 \\
300 & 7.8 & 7 & 6 & 5 & 4 \\
400 & 10 & 9 & 7.8 & 7 & 6 \\
500 & 13 & 12 & 10 & 9 & 8.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of E2 ED (ms). Figure 6: Node counts vs. E2 ED (ms). SFO-CORP protocol and the present protocols is compared in Figure 8. Table 6 explains the communication costs for the different algorithms. As density grows, so does the communication cost performance, owing to frequent route disconnections, frequent retransmissions, and congestion. The communication overhead (CO) is computed by dividing the total number of routing packets counted throughout the simulation time using the number of data packets. It is calculated as:  
\[Communication\ overhead=\sum_{t}(\frac{RT^{t}}{DT^{t}}) \tag{17}\]  
Figure 8: Number of nodes vs. communication cost (rate). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of Nodes** & **LEACH** & **EECRP** & **FEEC-IIR** & **CL-IoT** & **SFO-CORP** \\ \hline
100 & 4200 & 4400 & 4500 & 4800 & 5000 \\
200 & 3800 & 4200 & 4300 & 4600 & 4900 \\
300 & 3200 & 3900 & 4000 & 4400 & 4500 \\
400 & 2500 & 2800 & 3500 & 3700 & 4000 \\
500 & 1500 & 2000 & 2500 & 3000 & 3300 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of Network Lifetimes (rounds). Figure 7: Number of nodes vs. network lifetime. where \(RT^{t}\) is a count of the route packets and \(DT^{t}\) represents the number of data packets at time \(t\). Figure 9 shows the efficiency of communication overheads with a variable number of nodes. Due to the above reasons, SFO-CORP had a lower communication overhead than any other protocol. Compared to the previous protocols, the parameters utilized in SFO-CORP limited the procedures necessary for effective CH selection and route construction, resulting in a lower communication cost and overhead for the SFO-CORP protocol. The network's routing packets increased due to routine reclustering and route reconstruction tasks. When compared to the cutting-edge protocols shown in Table 7, the SFO-CORP protocol performed better overall, in terms of network communication overheads, by reducing the number of routing packets. In highly mobile situations, the suggested strategy seeks to increase the packet transfer rate and decrease end-to-end latency. Temporary connections can result in transmission errors and retransmission in a WSN based on high portability. The sensor hub might use more energy in this situation and can also boost the throughput, while lowering packet delivery rates. The suggested approach could ensure a secure connection, while conserving the energy of the tuned system. Finally, there is reason to expect reduced data gathering costs. Sensors concentrate the remaining energy, extending the life and dependability of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Node Counts** & **LEACH** & **EECRP** & **FEEC-IIR** & **CL-IoT** & **SFO-CORP** \\ \hline
100 & 0.15 & 0.12 & 0.1 & 0.07 & 0.05 \\
200 & 0.18 & 0.15 & 0.14 & 0.09 & 0.08 \\
300 & 0.23 & 0.19 & 0.15 & 0.13 & 0.10 \\
400 & 0.25 & 0.2 & 0.18 & 0.16 & 0.12 \\
500 & 0.35 & 0.25 & 0.2 & 0.18 & 0.17 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Communication Cost (rate).