# Wireless Sensor Network Energy Model and Its Use in the Optimization of Routing Protocols
## 3 Analysis and Results under the Simulation Tool
MPH, having multi-parent links, shows greater redundancy and increases the amount of valid routes that continue to function for changes in the network. This can be interpreted taking into account that MPH was designed to combine the best design features of a proactive protocol with the redundancy of the reactive protocols and the foregoing together with the verification of the proposed energy model, which allows visualizing easily and with concise data possible anomalies in specific areas of a network. In Table 4 a sampling period of 100 seconds was taken for the simulations. Tests were performed every 10 seconds, which is the percentage of Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR). The PDR is a metric that indicates the number of packages delivered in a given time and indicates the collisions present in a network that cause packet loss. This performance metric is directly related to the energy and provides an idea on how nodes behave in the network; for example, if there are connections and disconnections of nodes, interference and quality of the links, among other features that show the performance of the routing protocol. As aforementioned, AODV and DSR have a similar behavior because their reactive nature. Initially, the network nodes do not know the routes to the destination, so they send request packets implying a large number of control packages, which increases the overhead. The LEACH and PEGASIS protocols try to make the route to the coordinating node efficiently through clusters or changes in the role of the coordinating nodes; this increases the assertiveness of the nodes in the package delivery, a consequence that is reflected in energy consumption. The difference in PDR in this initial stage between AODV and DSR with respect to LEACH and PEGASIS is approximately 23% in favor of the latter protocols. MPH and ZTR are proactive protocols, so at the initial stage, nodes behave the same as in stable state because the neighbor tables are periodically renewed and not when the routes require it. One of the big differences between MPH and ZTR is multi-parent links, which allow the packets to have greater redundancy in MPH and a reliable delivery. The difference in PDR between AODV and DSR with respect to MPH and ZTR is 28% in favor of MPH and ZTR. Concerning the rate of transmitted packets, we analyze the measurement impact of the energy model when we vary the packet transmission rate. Tests were carried out for 1 day (24 h). In particular, on a Wednesday; the day in which we can find regular traffic of people and vehicles on campus, and therefore, more operating wireless devices. We show these results in Figure 3:4  
We note that, for five different packet transmission rates, the most drastic variation is found in the rates of 50 and 100 kbps, with a 37% difference with respect to energy at 250 kbps. The difference in energy expenditure with the change in packet transmission rates is 43% higher for reactive protocols, compared to other protocols. The difference between proactive protocols and energy-aware protocols is only 5% in favor of the latter.