# Wireless Sensor Network Energy Model and Its Use in the Optimization of Routing Protocols
## 3 Analysis and Results under the Simulation Tool
Although the routes can be compensated, because they are shorter, nodes have a greater number of directly connected neighbors. Even so, the energy model shows that the MPH protocol has similar characteristics to ZTR, the latter being extremely simple and not scalable but quite fast and efficient. MPH shows an average energy saving of 10% with respect to ZTR, 24% with respect to DSR, and 28% compared to AODV. Figure 10: Energy distribution in the nodes for each evaluated protocol. In addition, we observe that LEACH and PEGASIS have similar behaviors with a difference of 3% between them. These are the protocols that have the lower energy consumption in face of the stress caused in the network. When the transmission power is increased, these protocols maintain the rotation of roles in the nodes and therefore, both the energy and the network overload are balanced. The above is perfectly combined with the fact that both are hierarchical protocols further enabling packet traffic. PEGASIS presents a decrease in the total energy for each radio due to its approach of sending packets in chain, unlike the establishment of clusters exhibited in LEACH. MPH differs from LEACH and PEGASIS by 30%. This may be due to the proactive nature of MPH, in which from time to time, the tables of neighbors are updated and generate greater overhead. If the radius increases, the tables of neighbors become bigger and their update more complex. Figure 12 shows two comparative conditions for the six protocols under study: stable network conditions working properly and adverse network conditions under the topology referred in Figure 3:0 For the study, we took an average of energy at the same hour (noon) for 7 days for each of the nodes in the network. Nodes transmit at a rate of 70 packets per second. To generate interference and create adverse conditions in the network, we put 5 nodes close to the majority of nodes in the network that were emitting the same reactive jamming frequency, thus increasing the loss of packets along the links as it is shown in Figure 13 with unnumbered jammer nodes marked in blue. The network has a stress zone and a high focus on packet loss. This was made to analyze how the network reacts with each routing protocol and how this influences the energy of each node having both local and global perspectives regarding energy consumption of the network. Figure 3:1 Energy according to the increase in the coverage radius of a node. Figure 3:2 Energy at each node of the network under both stable and adverse conditions for the four protocols studied. Figure 3:3 Grid topology with jammer nodes generating adverse conditions. We observe that node energy in the surroundings of that half greatly increased in adverse conditions for AODV and DSR. ZTR and MPH try to stabilize the energy of the network nodes and redistribute the packet losses. LEACH and PEGASIS have a similar energetic behavior that does not necessarily behave by crowns from greater to lesser overload. These protocols react very well before adverse conditions because in more than 50% of the nodes, the energy expenditure is similar in both stable and adverse states. These protocols have a similar energy expenditure between them with a difference of 5% in favor of PEGASIS and a difference of only 3% with respect to MPH and ZTR. This is reflected in the fact that the average energy per node in adverse conditions for the network are 0.1990, 0.1968, 0.1805, 0.1741, 0.1671, and 0.1150 Joules for AODV, DSR, LEACH, PEGASIS, ZTR, and MPH, respectively. The above figures show that MPH has an energy expenditure similar to ZTR, which is a simple and fast algorithm; still MPH exhibits the advantage of route maintenance and redundancy. ZTR and MPH have similar natures, both having proactive characteristics. However, when there is a large number of packets in the network, there are more collisions and packet loss. The ZTR protocol can lose links and some isolated nodes might remain causing an increase in energy consumption. For this reason, the energy difference between MPH and ZTR is 31%.