## 5 Simulation Results and Discussion
### Overall Network Operational Period and Stability Period  
Figure 8, indicates the network lifetime and stability period of simulated protocols for first scenario experiment. Network lifetime depicts the time intervals between idealization and the expiration of  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l r} \hline
**Parameter** & **Value** \\ \hline
1 st Network size & 100 m \(\times\) 100 m \\
2 nd Network size & 300 m \(\times\) 300 m \\
3 rd Network size & 450 m \(\times\) 4500 m \\ Initial Energy & 0.5 j \\ P & 0.1 j \\ Data Aggregation Energy cost & 50 pj/bit j \\
1 st Network nodes & 100 \\
2 nd Network nodes & 200 \\
3 rd Network nodes & 300 \\ packet size & 4000 bit \\ Transmitter Electronics (EelecTx) & 50 nj/bit \\ Receiver Electronics (EelecRx) & 50 nj/bit \\ Transmit amplifier (Eamp) & 100 pj/bit/m2 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: General simulation parameters.  
all nodes, while stability period covers the time interval for which all nodes are functional (alive). In this case, SACFIR outperforms with 19%, which is 16% better network lifetime than ATCEEC and MCEEC respectively. We consider this improvement to be due to the SDN controller reconfigurations intelligence that develop the routing scheme for every period but are held back from implementing reconfigurations until the existing schemes produce acceptable forwarding. Similarly, SAMCFIR achieves 36%, which is a 32% network lifetime improvement on ATCEEC and MCEEC protocols. Because the forwarding phase of SAMCFIR limits the forwarding of similar information and waits until critical information arrives, it saves more energy and results in a better network lifetime. In the case of stability, SACFIR produces a 20% improvement on ATCEEC, while MCEEC still has a 2% better performer because MCEEC also utilizes the multi-hoping facility to reach BS. SAMCFIR develops better routing stability on both ATCEEC and MCEEC protocols with a margin of 64% and 41% respectively.  
Figure 9 shows the simulation results of average energy consumption ratios for ATCEEC, MCEEC, SACFIR and SAMCFIR protocols. Average energy consumption ratio means the amount of energy consumption per period of network iterative operation. In this case, the ATCEEC performs the worst as it has limited central route selection and carries the burden of single-hop forwarding. MCEEC has some improvement and the proposed model SACFIR and SAMFIR produce the optimal energy consumption utilization and extend the network lifetime to exceed the performance on existing protocols. The SDN central controller adds skills to the sensor nodes to perform reprogrammable configuration while understanding the remaining energy index. These features result in additional advantages of the proposed models to enhance an overall better network lifetime and stability period.  
Figures 10 and 11 show the simulation outcomes regarding network lifetime and stability period for a network area of 300 m \(\times\) 300 m and 450 m \(\times\) 450 m, respectively. As a network area increases, the performance declination is more visible for all experimental protocols. However, the proposed models still show resistance and maintain an acceptable performance even in the most challenging and drastic network environments. Similarly, Figures 12 and 13 represent the energy consumption ration for 300 m \(\times\) 300 m and 450 m \(\times\) 450 m respectively. The proposed models face drastic performance downfall but still show better resistance than ATCEEC and MCEEC.  
Figure 11: Energy Efficiency in terms of network lifetime in network of 450 m \(\times\) 450 m with 300 nodes.  
Figure 10: Energy Efficiency in terms of network lifetime in network of 300 m \(\times\) 300 m with 200 nodes.  
Figure 9: Energy consumption rate as network operation progress in network of 100 m \(\times\) 100 m with 100 nodes.