Research Article
Performance and Improvement Analysis of the Underwater WSN Using a Diverse Routing Protocol Approach
Table 2
Comparison of all routing protocols for 120 nodes.
| Parameters | Protocol | OLSR | DSR | AODV | LAR1 | DYMO | ZRP | STAR-LORA | STAR-ORA | Fisheye | Bellman–Ford | CBR | FTP | VBR | CBR | FTP | VBR | CBR | FTP | VBR | CBR | FTP | VBR | CBR | FTP | VBR | CBR | FTP | VBR | CBR | FTP | VBR | CBR | FTP | VBR | CBR | FTP | VBR | CBR | FTP | VBR |
| Average transmission delay (µsec) | 28 | 49 | 39 | 24 | 42 | 36 | 18 | 27 | 33 | 27 | 50 | 43 | 31 | 55 | 41 | 29 | 38 | 49 | 26 | 48 | 54 | 31 | 36 | 44 | 26 | 46 | 48 | 33 | 32 | 44 | Receive power consumption (mWh) | 0.3 | 14 | 8 | 0.2 | 15 | 13 | 0.2 | 8.5 | 7 | 0.1 | 8.4 | 9 | 0.2 | 9 | 8.5 | 0.8 | 3 | 12 | 0.3 | 2.4 | 4 | 0.7 | 5 | 3 | 1.6 | 8.5 | 8 | 0.5 | 12 | 11 | Transmit power consumption (mWh) | 0.1 | 22 | 15 | 0.2 | 15 | 10 | 0.1 | 18 | 9 | 0.1 | 21 | 12 | 0.1 | 16 | 12 | 0.6 | 7 | 13 | 0.2 | 8 | 7 | 1.2 | 5 | 6.5 | 0.8 | 12 | 13 | 0.5 | 24 | 16 | Percentage of utilization | 0.8 | 1 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | Average jitter (µsec) | 0.5 | 2.4 | 2 | 1.2 | 16 | 26 | 5.2 | 14 | 11 | 5.9 | 19 | 20 | 1.6 | 9.5 | 16 | 12 | 14 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 22 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 17 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 12 | 1.8 |
|
|