# Reliable Fault Tolerant-Based Multipath Routing Model for Industrial Wireless Control Systems
## 3 Methodology and System Model
### Simulation Setup
This reliability is expressed through the percentage of the packet delivery rate, as shown in Figure 6.1 A vast improvement was achieved when comparing the original PDR of the Han algorithm with MPR-based Han. The mean and median of PDR were enhanced by more than 3%, in which the PDR median of Han statistical results is 95.6% while the PDR median of MPRHan is 99.5%. In the same context, the MPR model is tested on the Kunzel [26] algorithm for evaluating the packet delivery rate. MPR model has shown an increment of the PDR by a remarkable factor. This can be observed in the blue boxplots in Figure 11, as the original median of the Kunzel algorithm was approximately 96.3% and was then increased to 99.2% as the MPR method was used in the network. The median and the mean of the Kunzel original statics are identical; however, the MPR-based Kunzel showed a slight difference between these two parameters. However, it can be seen that the proposed MPR model has significantly contributed to enhancing the network reliability where the packed delivery ratio was increased, resulting in enriching the nodes with the data required to keep the IWSN running sufficiently and reliably. Similarly, the packet delivery ratio of the QLRR [4] algorithm was evaluated over the original topology and MPR proposed topology. The result of the simulation can be observed in the green boxplots in Figure 6.2 The proposed MPR method has increased the rate of reliability when being simulated with the QLRR algorithm. The enhancement of reliability is achieved by increasing the packet delivery ratio, as shown in Figure 6.3 The improvement added to the network was significant when comparing the original PDR of the QLRR algorithm with MPR-based QLRR. An approximate PDR percentage of 4% was the enhancement added in the mean and median values. The PDR mean and median of QLRR statistical results are 94.8% and 95.2%, while the PDR mean and median of MPRQLRR are 99.2% and 99.5%, respectively. In summary, the MPR model proposed in this study has improved the transmission reliability of the three utilized algorithms. When comparing the effectiveness of the MPR model in association with the state-of-the-art algorithms, it was found that MPRHan outperforms the other two algorithms by having the highest mean and median of PDR. On the other hand, the MPRQLRR showed a better performance than MPRKunzel in terms of mean and median values, as shown in Figure 6.4 In other words, the MPRKunzel algorithm has the worst performance, which recorded the lowest mean and median of 98.8% and 99.2%, respectively. This is because the Han algorithm builds graphs trying to reduce the number of hops from the gateway, which is easily achieved with the proposed MPR method. PDR with Network Link Failures

Figure 12 depicts the boxplot of the PDR when random link failures are introduced at different links of the MPR model. It can be observed that the proposed model is robust where the PDR in all of the utilized algorithms was not very affected by the packet drop. When the response is compared with the condition of no packet drop (PD), the average and the mean of the MPRKunzel and MPRQLRR data is nearly the same. Despite the small effect due to the packet drop, the PDR of the WSAN over the proposed MPR model still outperforms the original algorithms shown in Figure 11 as discussed in Section 4.4. ### Performance Assessments and Comparison

The performance assessment and comparison with the state-of-the-art are presented in Figure 6.5 It presents the comparison of the proposed MPR method with the literature regarding their route construction objectives, constructed graphs and routes, the definition of a primary path for each node, and the performance metrics used in the analyses. Because battery-powered devices dominate IWSNs, most algorithms try to extend the lifetime of the network. The latency and use of communication resource reductions are based on the

Figure 6.6 Packet delivery ratio (PDR) performance comparison. Figure 6.7 Packet delivery ratio (PDR) with and without packet drop.