Performance Analysis of Underwater Wireless Sensor Network by Deploying FTP, CBR, and VBR as Applications

Table 1

Comparison of all routing protocols in CBR, FTP, and VBR applications.

Parmeter	Protocol
	OSLR			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 (usec)	28	49	39	23	42	36	18	27	35	27	49	42.6	31	54.8	40.5	27.9	37.5	48	34.8	46	53.8	30.4	38	44	25	45.8	48	33	31	43.5
Receive power consumption (mVh)	0.2	14	7.5	0.2	15	13	0.2	8	6.5	0.1	14	8.5	0.14	8	8	0.65	2.5	10	0.1	2	3.5	0.5	4.5	1.5	1.2	9	7.5	0.3	10	10
Idle power consumption (mVh)	0.1	15	15	0.1	13	15	0.1	15	15	0.1	15	16	0.12	15	17	0.16	17	15	0.15	15	16	0.16	16	17	0.15	15	16	0.2	15	16
Transmit power consumption (mVh)	0.1	20	13	0.1	14	10	0.1	16	7	0.1	20	11	0.1	15	10	0.55	6.5	12	0.12	7.5	6.5	1.2	5	6.5	0.8	11	12	0.5	22	15
Percentage of utilization	0.7	0.9	0.8	0.7	0.7	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.1	0.6	0.2	0.19	0.61	0.57	0.2	0.09	0.1	0.24	0.01	0.38	0.7	0.9	0	0.2	0.09	0.17	0.2	0.1	0.2	0.25
Average jitter (usec)	0.4	1.1	1	1.4	14	26	4.9	12	10	5.4	17	17.9	1.08	8.4	15.6	10.1	13.5	0.27	0.11	20.8	1.85	2.35	1.1	0.1	0.43	15.6	0.7	0.6	14	0.84
Average pathloss (dB)	27	27	27	26	27	27	26	27	28	26	27	27.3	25.9	26.8	26.8	26.5	27.4	27.3	26.7	27.4	27.3	25.8	27	27	25.8	26.8	27	26	27	27.1