Table 4.
Performance analysis of existing schemes.
Schemes/solutions | Characteristics | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. of dead nodes | Packets sent to sink | Packet dropped ratio | Packet received at sink | Thermal aware approach | Network stability period | Delay | |
IM-SIMPLE [1] | Medium | High | Medium | Medium | No | Medium | Medium |
DARE [14] | Medium | High | Medium | Medium | No | Medium | High |
M-ATTEMPT [23] | High | Medium | Medium | Medium | Yes | Low | Medium |
SIMPLE [28] | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium | No | Medium | Medium |
FEEL [29] | Medium | High | Low | High | No | High | Medium |
TARA [56] | High | Low | High | Low | Yes | Low | High |
LTR [57] | High | Low | High | Low | Yes | Low | High |
ALTR [57] | High | Medium | Medium | Medium | Yes | Low | Medium |
LTRT [58] | Medium | High | Low | High | Yes | Medium | Medium |
RE-ATTEMPT [59] | Medium | High | Medium | Medium | No | Medium | Low |
M2E2 [61] | Medium | High | High | Medium | Yes | Medium | Medium |
CO-LAEEBA [79] | Low | High | Low | High | No | High | Low |
WASP [85] | High | Medium | Medium | Medium | No | Low | Low |
CICADA [86] | Medium | High | Low | High | No | Medium | Medium |
ERRS | Medium | High | Low | High | No | High | Low |