# Fuzzy-Logic Dijkstra-Based Energy-Efficient Algorithm for Data Transmission in WSNs
## 5 Performance Evaluation
### Results and Discussions
Overall, the proposed routing scheme can provide better performance owing to the inclusion of residual energy and intra-cluster communication cost in the weight function while selecting the next hop for data transmission. In Figure 8, the system delay performance of the four routing schemes is compared with respect to the number of rounds. It can be inferred from the graph that until the 300 th round, the SPFL shows better performance in terms of delay compared to proposed scheme; however, as the number of rounds increases, the delay of SPFL starts increasing even though it selects the shortest available path. This is owing to the reason that with the increase in the number of rounds, energy depletion of the nodes  
Figure 7: Performance comparison of network energy characteristics of the four algorithms: (**a**) network energy conservation with respect to number of rounds; (**b**) network energy consumption corresponding to number of nodes when the number of rounds is considered to be 100.  
increases, and selecting the shortest path may not be the most efficient solution every time. Once the nodes located nearby deplete their energy, the faraway nodes are selected, which induces additional delay in the network. The system delay in case of ESRAD and FML is relatively high because both the schemes consider residual energies of the nodes, and they may select energy-rich nodes that are located far away, thereby increasing the delay of the whole network. Figure 8b illustrates the execution time of each algorithm with respect to the network size, i.e., increasing number of nodes. It is evident from the graph that FML and ESRAD have almost equal execution time as the algorithms focus on the residual energies of neighboring nodes to route data. In addition to this, SPFL shows relatively higher execution time when the network size is increased. This is because the PM asks all the nodes in the cluster to send their information for finding the shortest path towards the destination. When the number of nodes in the network increases, more information messages will be sent to the PM which will induce additional delays in the system, and hence increased execution time. The proposed scheme considers the residual energy of immediate nodes and its intra-cluster communication cost which leads to increased execution time compared to FML and ESRAD. Figure 8: Performance comparison of the four routing algorithms: (**a**) system delay corresponding to specific number of rounds; (**b**) execution time of algorithms with respect to number of nodes. In Figure 9a, the percent packet loss comparison of the four routing protocols is performed to study the impact of packet loss on the system performance. In the 300 round, the packet loss for SPFL is 42%, which is double the loss for the proposed scheme, i.e., 21%. Moreover, ESRAD and FML show 5% and 12% more packet loss when compared with the proposed algorithm. This is owing to the fact that with an increase in the number of rounds, the nodes start depleting their energies faster. Furthermore, owing to the random distribution of the nodes, it is possible for a node to occasionally not find a neighbor node with sufficient energy or to find no intermediate node at all; this can result in packet loss. As illustrated, SPFL shows a greater percentage of packet loss because its only focus is to find the shortest path from the source to destination without considering the energy level of the data relaying nodes. However, ESRAD shows better performance compared to FML because it takes into account the energy consumption of the neighbor nodes in forwarding a packet, which makes it compulsory to choose a node with a sufficient amount of energy. The proposed scheme shows lower packet loss compared to the other three schemes because it balances the load distribution within the cluster by considering the node with reduced communication cost and high residual energy. Similarly, Figure 9b represents the number of packets received by the BS.