## 6 Performance Analysis
### Energy Consumption of Nodes
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Node** & **Tx Power = 2 dBm** & **Tx Power = 5 dBm** & **Tx Power = 8 dBm** & **Tx Power = 11 dBm** & **Tx Power = 14 dBm** \\ \hline
1 & 2.45 mW & 2.46 mW & 2.46 mW & 2.09 mW & 2.18 mW \\
2 & 2.45 mW & 2.46 mW & 2.18 mW & 1.9 mW & 2.03 mW \\
3 & 1.89 mW & 1.90 mW & 2.74 mW & 3.10 mW & 3.24 mW \\
4 & 2.38 mW & 2.39 mW & 2.60 mW & 2.31 mW & 2.41 mW \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Energy consumption of the nodes ‘1’. Figure 5: Framework for LoRa (FLoRa) graphical interface. Figure 6: Sub-modules of LoRa Node. i.e., from 1.90 mW to 2.74 mW. Node '4' consumed the constant energy consumption for Tx power of 2 and 5 dBm; however, the energy consumption is triggered high at the Tx power of 8 dBm and suddenly the energy consumption is reduced to 2.31 mW. The part 'a' of Figure 7 reveals that the node '3' (red color line) is consuming high energy consumption of all nodes from the Tx power of 8 dBm. The part 'a' reveals that the node '3' (red color line) is consuming high energy consumption of all nodes from the Tx power of 8 dBm. In the case '2', we performed a simulation with 2 gateways by maintaining constant other parameters. The energy consumption of the 4 nodes are presented in Table 5. As the gateways have increased to two, the energy consumption of all nodes gradually decreased at the Tx power of 2 dBm. The energy consumption of Node '1 decreased for the Tx of 2 dBm, 5 dBm, and 8 dBm is decreased when compared with a single gateway. In Node '4', the energy consumption at all Tx power is decreased except for the Tx power of 14 dBm, where, at Tx power = 14 dBm, the energy consumption is the highest energy consumption among all nodes for all Tx power. Except for Tx power of 2 dBm and 5 dBm, the energy consumption of the Node '3' is decreased at the remaining Tx power. The graphical representation of the energy consumption is represented in Figure 7b. In case '3', we increased the number of nodes to 8  
Figure 7: Energy consumption of nodes (**a**–**d**). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Node** & **Tx Power = 2 dBm** & **Tx Power = 5 dBm** & **Tx Power = 8 dBm** & **Tx Power = 11 dBm** & **Tx Power = 14 dBm** \\ \hline
1 & 1.68 mW & 1.69 mW & 2.39 mW & 2.10 mW & 2.78 mW \\
2 & 2.10 mW & 2.11 mW & 2.53 mW & 2.81 mW & 2.03 mW \\
3 & 2.10 mW & 2.12 mW & 2.60 mW & 2.52 mW & 2.63 mW \\
4 & 2.24 mW & 2.25 mW & 2.39 mW & 2.24 mW & 3.69 mW \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Energy consumption of nodes ’2’. and the remaining parameters of the simulation are kept constant as assumed in the case '1'. As the number of nodes increased to the 8, the nodes are represented as node '1', node '2', node '3', node '4', node '5', node '6', node '7', and node '8'. The case '3' is represented as energy consumption of nodes '3', and values are presented in Table 6. Figure 7c illustrates the graphical representation of case '3'. The amount of energy consumption of the first four nodes has varied concerned to the previous case. In this case, Node '1' has consumed a high amount of energy at the Tx power of 11 dBm, i.e., 3.25 dBm, and Node '2' has consumed a low amount of energy at the Tx power of 5 dBm, i.e., 1.61 dBm. At Tx power of 14 dBm, the energy consumption for the node '2', '3', and '4' is the same, i.e., 1.88 mW, and also for the Nodes '5' and '6', the energy consumption remains the same, i.e., 2.48 mW. For node '3', the energy consumption gradually decreases from 3.01 mW to 1.88 mW. The energy consumption of Node '5' gradually increased from 2.03 mW to 2.48 mW, and node '8' also increased from 1.96 mW to 2.56 mW. The graphical representation of the energy consumption is represented in Figure 7c. In case '4', we performed the simulation by increasing the number of nodes to 16, and the remaining parameters are kept constant.