## 6 Simulation Results and Discussion
Figure 7: Packet Delivery Ratio vs. Simulation runtime. As shown in Figure 7, it is noted that the proposed TRT provides consistent performance of packet delivery ratio in comparison with EDCGRP, MBC and LEACH, because the T-based routing topology ensures the link availability. Also, PRM-ACK based route reservation mechanism prevents the collision and congestion in data routing. In the existing protocols, there is connectivity and link failure issues are occurred owing to random deployment and lack of coordination between the sensor nodes leading to the packet collision and loss. However, in the proposed TRT, it does not create the routing between the source and BS which constructs only up to the coordinator node. Also, the data packet moves through the coordinator to the router nodes and easily routes to BS without collision and congestion. The image compression technique based on LBT and Golomb + Multiple Quantization coders minimizes the image file size which reduces the packet loss and retransmission. As a result, the packet delivery ratio of the proposed TRT is 6.4%, 12.96% and 16.63% higher than the EDCGRP, MBC and LEACH respectively. From Figure 8, it is obtained that a coordinator-controlled data router ensures a collision-free routing to the BS. Based on the hop count, the proposed T-based routing topology selects the intermediate node which ensures the stable path between the source and coordinator. As a result, it reduces packet loss and makes routing to the BS easier. Also, TRT minimizes the end-to-end delay in packet delivery when compared to the EDCGRP, MBC and LEACH because it achieves collision-free communication between the source and BS by exchanging the PRM-ACK. It is observed from Figure 8 that the average end-to-end delay of the proposed TRT is 10.33% 19.72% and 13.84% lower than EDCGRP, MBC and LEACH respectively. Figure 8: Average end-to-end delay vs. Simulation runtime. Figure 9: Average energy consumption vs. Transmission range. The energy consumption of the proposed protocol is evaluated with respect to the range of transmission as shown in Figure 9, where the simulation results are obtained over a simulation time of 300 s with 25 sensor nodes. The transmission range of the sensor node in this scenario varies from 20 to 100 m. The network's availability and coverage are the important parameters to be considered in WSNs to ensure the lossless communication. The impact of the transmission range is analyzed in terms of the energy consumption to improve the energy efficiency and network lifetime. The energy consumption directly attributes to the distance between the transmitter and receiver. It is noted from Figure 9 that the average energy consumption of the proposed TRT is 23.25%, 32.81% and 44.29% lower than the EDCGRP, MBC and LEACH, because it efficiently works with the strip-based node deployment and offers stable accessibility to its neighbors. It is seen from Figure 10 that the proposed TRT has utilized the minimum number of control packets as compared to EDCGRP, MBC and LEACH. The proposed TRT exchanges the control packets to determine the route during data transmission only. But, EDCGRP, MBC and LEACH protocol utilized excessive control packets to form the cluster and routing. It is seen from Figure 10 that the number of control packets utilized in the proposed TRT is 17.09%, 26.7% and 16.31% lower than the EDCGRP, MBC and LEACH. In Table 4, the size of the sensing area is varied from 100 m \(\times\) 100 m to 500 m \(\times\) 500 m, the number of nodes deployment depends on Equation (2), here \(d_{c}=2\) m. The transmission range of the sensor nodes is varied from 2 m to 100 m for the proposed TRT as well as EDCGRP, MBC, and for LEACH, it depends on the size of the network area. From the simulation result, it is found that the proposed TRT is more energy efficient and scalable as compared to EDCGRP, MBC and LEACH when the size of the network increases.