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 |