From: ali <ali@ali>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 23:08:11 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: Update by Ali 18-10-2014
X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/LiCO.git/commitdiff_plain/c99707f7cbf88b2963d832e7cb45344b5dc55a94?ds=inline

Update by Ali 18-10-2014
---

diff --git a/LiCO_Journal.tex b/LiCO_Journal.tex
index 0764c20..402c450 100755
--- a/LiCO_Journal.tex
+++ b/LiCO_Journal.tex
@@ -486,14 +486,14 @@ In this experiment, we study the effect of the energy consumed by the WSN during
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/EC95.pdf} 
-\caption{The Energy Consumption with $95\%-Lifetime$}
+\caption{The Energy Consumption per period with $Lifetime_{95}$}
 \label{fig3EC95}
 \end{figure} 
-
+                                           
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/EC50.pdf} 
-\caption{The Energy Consumption with $Lifetime50$}
+\caption{The Energy Consumption per period with $Lifetime_{50}$}
 \label{fig3EC50}
 \end{figure} 
 
@@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ In this experiment, we are observed the superiority of LiCO and DiLCO-16 protoco
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/LT95.pdf}  
-\caption{The Network Lifetime for $Lifetime95$}
+\caption{The Network Lifetime for $Lifetime_{95}$}
 \label{fig3LT95}
 \end{figure}
 
@@ -518,18 +518,19 @@ In this experiment, we are observed the superiority of LiCO and DiLCO-16 protoco
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/LT50.pdf}  
-\caption{The Network Lifetime for $Lifetime50$}
+\caption{The Network Lifetime for $Lifetime_{50}$}
 \label{fig3LT50}
 \end{figure} 
 
 As highlighted by figures~\ref{fig3LT95} and \ref{fig3LT50}, the network lifetime obviously increases when the size of the network increases, with our LiCO and DiLCO-16 protocols that leads to maximize the lifetime of the network compared with other approaches. 
 
-By choosing the best suited nodes, for each round, by optimizing the coverage and lifetime of the network to cover the area of interest and by letting the other ones sleep in order to be used later in next rounds, LiCO protocol efficiently prolonged the network lifetime especially for a coverage ratio greater than $50 \%$, whilst it stayed very near to  DiLCO-16 protocol for $95 \%$.  Figure~\ref{figLTALL} introduces the comparisons of the lifetime coverage for different coverage ratios between our LiCO and DiLCO-16 protocols.
+By choosing the best suited nodes, for each round, by optimizing the coverage and lifetime of the network to cover the area of interest and by letting the other ones sleep in order to be used later in next rounds, LiCO protocol efficiently prolonged the network lifetime especially for a coverage ratio greater than $50 \%$, whilst it stayed very near to  DiLCO-16 protocol for $95 \%$.  Figure~\ref{figLTALL} introduces the comparisons of the lifetime coverage for different coverage ratios between LiCO and DiLCO-16 protocols. 
+We denote by Protocol/50, Protocol/80, Protocol/85, Protocol/90, and Protocol/95 the amount of time during which the network can satisfy an area coverage greater than $50\%$, $80\%$, $85\%$, $90\%$, and $95\%$ respectively.
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/LTALL.pdf}  
-\caption{The Network Lifetime for $LifetimeDif$}
+\caption{The Network Lifetime for different coverage ratios}
 \label{figLTALL}
 \end{figure} 
 
diff --git a/R/EC50.pdf b/R/EC50.pdf
index bc12b05..21a8ed6 100644
Binary files a/R/EC50.pdf and b/R/EC50.pdf differ
diff --git a/R/EC95.pdf b/R/EC95.pdf
index 2072c61..2cff46d 100644
Binary files a/R/EC95.pdf and b/R/EC95.pdf differ