English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Adhoc Wireless Sensor Networks (AWSN’s) have found an increasing utility in various applications. In AWSN, sensor nodes are arranged in a topology which is suitable to the requirement of the nature of task. As the sensors are not connected in a fixed manner, their networking, location and functioning keeps on changing based on the situation due to which these are called Adhoc networks. The biggest challenge is to keep the sensors working for longer life by conserving their energy. Therefore, a suitable routing protocol needs to be selected to meet the energy conservation requirement at different nodes. In the present paper, we have evaluated the three energy conservation models i.e. Generic, Micaz and Micamotes for AODV and DYMO routing protocol. The evaluation is carried out using the parameter metrices: (i) Average End-to-End Delay (AEED), (ii) Throughput (iii) Energy consumed in Transmit mode and Receive mode. Based on the simulation results, it has been observed that Micamotes energy model using AODV routing protocol performs better in terms of energy consumption upto 42.99% and 29.90 % in transmit and upto 59.24% and 33.96 % in receive mode respectively as compared to Generic and Micaz energy model.

Evaluation of AODV and DYMO Routing Protocol using Generic, Micaz and Micamotes Energy Conservation Models in AWSN with Static and Mobile Scenario