\indent In this dissertation, we used an energy consumption model proposed by~\cite{DESK} and based on \cite{ref112} with slight modifications. The energy consumption for sending/receiving the packets is added, whereas the part related to the dynamic sensing range is removed because we consider a fixed sensing range.
-\indent For our energy consumption model, we refer to the sensor node Medusa~II which uses an Atmel's AVR ATmega103L microcontroller~\cite{ref112}. The typical architecture of a sensor is composed of four subsystems: the MCU subsystem which is capable of computation, communication subsystem (radio) which is responsible for transmitting/receiving messages, the sensing subsystem that collects data, and the power supply which powers the complete sensor node \cite{ref112}. Each of the first three subsystems can be turned on or off depending on the current status of the sensor. Energy consumption (expressed in milliWatt per second) for the different status of the sensor is summarized in Table~\ref{table1}.
+\indent For our energy consumption model, we refer to the sensor node Medusa~II which uses an Atmel's AVR ATmega103L microcontroller~\cite{ref112}. The typical architecture of a sensor is composed of four subsystems: the MCU subsystem which is capable of computation, communication subsystem (radio) which is responsible for transmitting/receiving messages, the sensing subsystem that collects data, and the power supply which powers the complete sensor node \cite{ref112}. Each of the first three subsystems can be turned on or off depending on the current status of the sensor. Energy consumption (expressed in milliWatt per second) for the different status of the sensor is summarized in Table~\ref{tab:EC}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\label{tab:EC}
\begin{tabular}{|l||cccc|}
\hline
- {\bf Sensor status} & MCU & Radio & Sensor & {\it Power (mW)} \\
+ {\bf Sensor status} & MCU & Radio & Sensing & {\it Power (mW)} \\
\hline
LISTENING & On & On & On & 20.05 \\
ACTIVE & On & Off & On & 9.72 \\
\item {{\bf Execution Time}}
%\subsubsection{Execution Time}
-In this experiment, the execution time of the distributed optimization approach has been studied. Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/T} gives the average execution times in seconds for the decision phase (solving of the optimization problem) during one period. They are given for the different approaches and various numbers of sensors. The original execution time is computed as described in section \ref{ch4:sec:04:04}. \\ \\ \\ \\
+In this experiment, the execution time of the distributed optimization approach has been studied. Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/T} gives the average execution times in seconds for the decision phase (solving of the optimization problem) during one period. They are given for the different approaches and various numbers of sensors. \\ \\% \\ \\ \\
\label{Figures/ch4/R1/T}
\end{figure}
-We can see from Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/T} that DiLCO-32 has very low execution times in comparison with other DiLCO versions because it is distributed on larger number of small subregions. Conversely, DiLCO-2 requires to solve an optimization problem considering half the nodes in each subregion and thus presents high execution times. Overall, to be able to deal with very large networks, a distributed method is clearly required.
+The original execution time is computed as described in section \ref{ch4:sec:04:04}. We can see from Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/T} that DiLCO-32 has very low execution times in comparison with other DiLCO versions because it is distributed on larger number of small subregions. Conversely, DiLCO-2 requires to solve an optimization problem considering half the nodes in each subregion and thus presents high execution times. Overall, to be able to deal with very large networks, a distributed method is clearly required.
\item {{\bf Network Lifetime}}
%\subsubsection{The Network Lifetime}
