# Routing Enhancement in MANET Using Particle Swarm Algorithm
## 3 The Proposed Method
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Iteration** & **Path** & **Distance** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Consumed** \\ **Power** \\ \end{tabular} & **Delay** & **Fitness Value** & **Global Best** \\ \hline
1 & [8, 3, 4, 1, 7, 2] & 83.39 & 236 & 384 & 703.39 & [8, 3, 6, 5, 10, 2] \\
2 & [8, 6, 5, 10, 2] & 77.57 & 229.00 & 350.00 & 656.57 & [8, 6, 5, 10, 2] \\
3 & [8, 5, 10, 2] & 38.02 & 168 & 251 & 457.02 & [8, 5, 10, 2] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Path evaluation. such as 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300. Each experiment was repeated 10 times, and the average was taken. Table 3 shows the simulation parameters used in the experiment. This section presents an overall comparison of the proposed PSO against the Fixed-PSO [20] and the existing Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) protocol. The Fixed-PSO aims to minimize the distance from the source to the destination node. Two parameters considered in the fitness function are the total distance from the source node to the destination and the distance between the last node in the path and the destination node. The Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) is a major metric for the performance of any routing protocol. In Figure 3, the proposed PSO achieves high PDR across all network sizes, starting at 50 nodes and continuing up to 300. The PDR in the proposed PSO is better than the other two algorithms as the number of nodes increases. The AODV and Fixed-PSO start lower and scale with an increasing number of nodes. The Fixed-PSO generally shows better results than the AODV in large networks but it achieved lower values in small networks. The proposed PSO is more effective in ensuring the successful delivery of packets in a network, especially in large networks. In Figure 3, it is obvious that the PDR in the proposed PSO was better than the PDR in the AODV as the number of nodes increased. Furthermore, the network connectivity was high due to the high number of nodes, which minimized the probability of packet loss. The proposed PSO protocol consistently achieved a higher Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) than the AODV protocol. The proposed PSO was more effective in ensuring the successful delivery of packets in a network, especially in large networks. Throughput represents the efficiency of the routing method in receiving the data packets. A higher average throughput indicates a more effective and efficient routing protocol. In Figure 4, throughput is measured in different network sizes for three different algorithms:

Figure 3: Packet delivery ratio for proposed PSO, Fixed-PSO, and AODV. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Value** \\ \hline Number of Nodes & 50–300 \\ Mobility Model & Random waypoint \\ Network Dimension & \(100\times 100\) \\ Node Distribution & Random \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Simulation parameters. Fixed-PSO, proposed PSO, and AODV. The proposed PSO algorithm outperforms other algorithms and consistently shows the highest throughput across all networks, indicating it is the most efficient protocol among the three in handling larger numbers of nodes. The Fixed-PSO generally shows better results than the AODV, especially as the number of nodes increases. The throughput for the three algorithms increases as the number of nodes increases. However, the proposed PSO consistently outperforms the other algorithms as the network size scales up. In Figure 5, the E2E delay of AODV consistently maintains a slightly lower delay in different network sizes. The proposed PSO algorithm seems to offer an improvement over the fixed PSO, while AODV routing appears to perform best in terms of minimizing delay. The proposed PSO achieves a slightly higher delay because of the occurrences of the frequent route discovery process. The number of valid paths in a routing protocol is a critical factor that affects its performance. More paths help in load balancing and fault tolerance.