X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/ThesisAli.git/blobdiff_plain/4db673f695b83fcf69011cdea52cb6d3d7c78892..433012874584d03b48d32d4cdba05eeb3b28dbe6:/CHAPITRE_06.tex

diff --git a/CHAPITRE_06.tex b/CHAPITRE_06.tex
index 6ac91bf..d7479d2 100755
--- a/CHAPITRE_06.tex
+++ b/CHAPITRE_06.tex
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 \label{ch6}
 
 
-\section{summary}
+\section{Summary}
 \label{ch6:sec:01}
 
 The most important problem in a Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is to optimize the
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ sensors' activities.  Extensive simulation experiments have been performed using
 OMNeT++, the  discrete event simulator, to  demonstrate that PeCO  can
 offer longer lifetime coverage for WSNs in comparison with some other protocols.
 
-\section{THE PeCO PROTOCOL DESCRIPTION}
+\section{The PeCO Protocol Description}
 \label{ch6:sec:02}
 
 \noindent  In  this  section,  we  describe in  details  our  Lifetime  Coverage
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ the area.
 
 \begin{figure}[t!]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[width=95.5mm]{Figures/ch6/Model.pdf}  
+\includegraphics[scale=0.80]{Figures/ch6/Model.pdf}  
 \caption{PeCO protocol.}
 \label{fig2}
 \end{figure} 
@@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ substantial increase of the coverage performance.
 \parskip 0pt    
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
- \includegraphics[scale=0.5] {Figures/ch6/R/CR.eps} 
+ \includegraphics[scale=0.8] {Figures/ch6/R/CR.eps} 
 \caption{Coverage ratio for 200 deployed nodes.}
 \label{fig333}
 \end{figure} 
@@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ Figure \ref{fig333}.
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figures/ch6/R/ASR.eps}  
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch6/R/ASR.eps}  
 \caption{Active sensors ratio for 200 deployed nodes.}
 \label{fig444}
 \end{figure} 
@@ -487,8 +487,8 @@ while keeping a good coverage level.
 \begin{figure}[h!]
   \centering
   \begin{tabular}{@{}cr@{}}
-    \includegraphics[scale=0.475]{Figures/ch6/R/EC95.eps} & \raisebox{2.75cm}{(a)} \\
-    \includegraphics[scale=0.475]{Figures/ch6/R/EC50.eps} & \raisebox{2.75cm}{(b)}
+    \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch6/R/EC95.eps} & \raisebox{4cm}{(a)} \\
+    \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch6/R/EC50.eps} & \raisebox{4cm}{(b)}
   \end{tabular}
   \caption{Energy consumption per period for (a)~$Lifetime_{95}$ and (b)~$Lifetime_{50}$.}
   \label{fig3EC}
@@ -515,8 +515,8 @@ Figure~\ref{fig3LT}(a) because the gain induced  by our protocols increases with
 \begin{figure}[h!]
   \centering
   \begin{tabular}{@{}cr@{}}
-    \includegraphics[scale=0.475]{Figures/ch6/R/LT95.eps} & \raisebox{2.75cm}{(a)} \\  
-    \includegraphics[scale=0.475]{Figures/ch6/R/LT50.eps} & \raisebox{2.75cm}{(b)}
+    \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch6/R/LT95.eps} & \raisebox{4cm}{(a)} \\  
+    \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch6/R/LT50.eps} & \raisebox{4cm}{(b)}
   \end{tabular}
   \caption{Network Lifetime for (a)~$Lifetime_{95}$ and (b)~$Lifetime_{50}$.}
   \label{fig3LT}
@@ -535,7 +535,7 @@ size. DiLCO is better  for coverage ratios near 100\%, but in  that case PeCO is
 not ineffective for the smallest network sizes.
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
-\centering \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figures/ch6/R/LTa.eps}
+\centering \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch6/R/LTa.eps}
 \caption{Network lifetime for different coverage ratios.}
 \label{figLTALL}
 \end{figure}