## 4 Simulations Results and Discussion with Performance Evaluation
### Simulation Results
#### 4.3.3 EC  
The EC of both proposed and existing protocols is shown in Figure 11 with different PSs and DRs. A DRs of 10, 20 and 30 Kbps is considered. PSs is considered to be 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 bytes. Figure 11 demonstrates that EC mainly depends on DRs irrespective of the packet length. EC increases as the PS increases.  
In FLMPC-One and FLMPC-Two, the number of active nodes are higher than the proposed protocols because of binary tree generation from cross nodes. A high number of active nodes create a dense environment which results in duplicate packets generation. Due to collisions in packets, maximum energy is dissipated in retransmissions. The EC increases with the increase in packet size as shown in Figure 11. In both existing protocols, the node performs calculations up to 2-3 hop to avoid the void hole regions. However, the EC is increased for collecting 3-hop neighbors information.  
In SPF-Three and BFS-SPF-Three, the EC is less than both existing protocols. However, SPF-Three finds the shortest route towards a destination with fewer active nodes. Meanwhile, BFS-SPF-Three performs the opportunistic routing and finds the shortest route. Binary tree formation and elimination of void nodes are the common characteristics of all protocols. In contrast to existing protocols, the number of active nodes in proposed protocols is less which results in less EC. If retransmissions in proposed protocols become necessary, SPF and BFS-SPF help to find the shortest path with minimum distance and EC. The elimination of void region problem with the best route decision makes the proposed protocols unique. Continuous transmission, reception and the noise of wind and ships also effect the data packets and EC. The proposed protocols outperform regarding minimum EC and tackle the challenges in efficient way to keep the communication continuous. The EC values with different PSs and DRs are shown in Table 5-9.  
Figure 10: Packet Delay (ms).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**EC**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PS = 200 bytes**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **DR = 10 Kbps** & **DR = 20 Kbps** & **DR = 30 Kbps** \\ \hline FLMPC-One & 471.0220 & 287.6480 & 223.6740 \\ FLMPC-Two & 328.1460 & 214.0730 & 176.0487 \\ SPF-Three & 146.2430 & 123.1215 & 115.4143 \\ BPS-SPF-Three & 107.6785 & 80.8360 & 71.8885 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: EC Values with PS of 300 bytes.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**EC**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PS = 300 bytes**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **DR = 10 Kbps** & **DR = 20 Kbps** & **DR = 30 Kbps** \\ \hline FLMPC-One & 546.6355 & 435.8860 & 287.0280 \\ FLMPC-Two & 442.2190 & 271.1095 & 214.0730 \\ SPF-Three & 169.3645 & 134.6822 & 123.1215 \\ BPS-SPF-Three & 134.5210 & 94.2572 & 80.8360 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: EC Values with PS of 100 bytes.  
Figure 11: EC with Different PSs and DRs.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**EC**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PS = 100 bytes**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **DR = 10 Kbps** & **DR = 20 Kbps** & **DR = 30 Kbps** \\ \hline FLMPC-One & 546.6355 & 435.8860 & 287.0280 \\ FLMPC-Two & 442.2190 & 271.1095 & 214.0730 \\ SPF-Three & 169.3645 & 134.6822 & 123.1215 \\ BPS-SPF-Three & 134.5210 & 94.2572 & 80.8360 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: EC Values with PS of 300 bytes.