Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Performance comparison of algorithms.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Proposed network model of SDWSN.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Energy consumption model.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Flowchart of FGB mechanism.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Running time sequence of DHEEC.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Flowchart of the proposed DHEEC algorithm.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

Node data transmission method.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Standard functions to test.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 6.

Changes in the fitness of FGB under different maximum mutation rates and population diversity indices.

(a) Variation with M; (b) Variation with β.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 4.

Comparison of results of algorithms under five standard functions.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Network simulation parameters.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 7.

Comparison of network node life cycle of algorithms.

(a) Number of node deaths. (b) Node death time.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

The total number of packets received by the base station.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Comparison of average remaining energy of nodes of the algorithms.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Control overhead comparison of algorithms under different topology size.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

End-to-end delay comparison of algorithms under different number of nodes.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Scalability evaluation under large network.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Energy efficiency analysis of each component.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Network running time comparison of algorithms.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

Communication delay evaluation at different node mobility.

(a) 1.8 m/s. (b) 5.5 m/s.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

Convergence of algorithm.

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Fig 17.

Computational complexity evaluation.

More »

Fig 17 Expand