# Realistic Simulation for Body Area and Body-To-Body Networks
## 4 Performance Evaluation
### Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Performance** & **Tx Power** & **BAN** & **IEEE 802.15.6** & **Proposed Deter-** & **Proposed Semi-** \\
**Metrics** & **(dBm)** & **(nbr)** & **Channel CM3-B** & **ministicApproach** & **Deterministic Approach** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{8}{*}{PRR (\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0} & 1 & 96.65 & 97.64 & 97.74 \\  & & 3 & 92.66 & 87.25 & 93.12 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-5\)} & 1 & 97.48 & 81.89 & 96.87 \\  & & 3 & 91.88 & 69.04 & 93.32 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-10\)} & 1 & 98.43 & 31.56 & 88.76 \\  & & 3 & 91.95 & 25.56 & 84.80 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-15\)} & 1 & 98.62 & 09.11 & 56.04 \\  & & 3 & 90.82 & 6.98 & 51.72 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Latency (ms)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0} & 1 & 2.3040 & 2.3080 & 29530 \\  & & 3 & 2.3320 & 2.3620 & 2.9600 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-5\)} & 1 & 2.9660 & 2.3370 & 4.2550 \\  & & 3 & 2.33270 & 2.3535 & 4.2160 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-10\)} & 1 & 2.9880 & 4.2660 & 2.3370 \\  & & 3 & 2.3380 & 4.2550 & 2.6773 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-15\)} & 1 & 2.3060 & 4.6890 & 2.3087 \\  & & 3 & 2.3370 & 4.6310 & 3.5988 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Energy (J)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0} & 1 & 0.2070 & 0.2415 & 0.2700 \\  & & 3 & 0.3630 & 0.4303 & 0.4101 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-5\)} & 1 & 0.1932 & 0.2769 & 0.2574 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 3 & 0.3461 & 0.5014 & 0.3800 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-10\)} & 1 & 0.1813 & 0.2138 & 0.2647 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 3 & 0.3341 & 0.3669 & 0.4841 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-15\)} & 1 & 0.1758 & 0.1843 & 0.3175 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 3 & 0.3258 & 0.1846 & 0.4000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: PRR, energy consumption and latency under varying Tx power and BANs for different channel and mobility models. It can be noticed that the granularity of the variations in delay and energy consumption is \(10^{-6}\) (_i.e._, \(\upmu\)s) and \(10^{-3}\) (_i.e._, \(\upmu\)s) respectively. The results of the average energy consumption are presented in Figure 15. The energy consumption for each transmitted packet is calculated as follows,  
\[E_{packet}=T_{packet}\times 3_{Volts}\times I_{mA} \tag{10}\]  
where \(T_{packet}\) is the packet duration in ms, which is based on the effective packet length and is obtained from real propagation time in the simulator, as explained above. The different current consumption values are considered from TI's cc2420 radio transceiver. For example, for transmission, (17.4, 14, 11, 9) mA is used against the power levels (_i.e._, (0, \(-\)5, \(-\)10, \(-\)15) dBm). For the reception and idle modes, 19.7 mA and 0.426 mA are used, respectively. Whereas, for the sleep mode, 0.02 mA is used. The energy consumption is estimated by considering a battery of three volts. For varying transmission power, we have, 17.4 mA (at 0 dBm) and 11 mA (at \(-\)10 dBm) current consumption from the cc2420 transceiver. For the receive, idle and sleep states, the current levels are constant, irrespective of transmission power. Therefore, overall, the impact from the power variation  
Figure 14: Average end-to-end packet delay at varying transmission power for one and three BANs (having three nodes per BAN). Figure 15: Average energy consumption at varying transmission power for one and three BANs (having three nodes per BAN). is only from the transmission power and the time being spent in each state. Please note that at lower transmission power levels, the main impact is from the idle duration, which is five- to 10-times more compared to the combined transmission and reception duration of the CSMA/CA MAC protocol. While comparing the energy consumption results, generally, our proposed semi-deterministic approach has higher energy consumption. Under one BAN, the results are comparable between the two proposed approaches until \(-10\) dBm of transmission power; however, at \(-15\) dBm, the semi-deterministic approach has one to two Joules more energy compared to the deterministic approach.