# Energy Efficient Routing Protocol in Sensor Networks Using Genetic Algorithm
## 6 Results and Discussion
### Comparison with Non-Genetic Algorithm-Based Protocols
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Energy (in Joules)/Protocol**} \\ \hline
**No. of Nodes** & **AODV** & **GA-AOMDV** & **DSR** & **EPAR** & **EPAR-BFS** \\ \hline
20.00 & 185.34 & 163.42 & 180.72 & 173.87 & 168.29 \\
40.00 & 269.61 & 193.39 & 264.58 & 197.52 & 196.73 \\
60.00 & 351.48 & 279.57 & 327.59 & 296.74 & 287.62 \\
80.00 & 402.73 & 303.48 & 361.37 & 327.63 & 309.74 \\
100.00 & 487.68 & 314.51 & 467.54 & 382.38 & 344.52 \\
120.00 & 507.81 & 385.48 & 487.93 & 419.46 & 401.36 \\
140.00 & 573.72 & 403.92 & 503.67 & 497.23 & 447.58 \\
150.00 & 578.59 & 447.57 & 513.85 & 502.63 & 476.61 \\ Sum & 3356.96 & 2491.34 & 3107.25 & 2797.46 & 2632.45 \\ Saving \% & 35 & & 25 & 13 & 6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Energy values of Figure 12.  
Figure 13: Packet Delivery Ratio vs. No of Nodes. crucial in emergency messages transmission in vehicle ad hoc networks (VANETs) to alert vehicles to avoid accidents on the road. In Figure 15, when the bandwidth of the intermediate links increases, more data can be transmitted where our protocol achieves the best performance. GA-AOMDV gets a gain in packet delivery ratio with a range of 7% to 21% over other protocols. Figure 14: RTT vs. No of Nodes. Figure 15: Packet Delivery Ratio vs. Average Bandwidth. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Packet Delivery Ratio (in \%)/Protocol**} \\ \hline
**No. of Nodes** & **AODV** & **GA-AOMDV** & **DSR** & **EPAR** & **EPAR-BFS** \\ \hline
20.00 & 82.12 & 96.35 & 83.59 & 88.24 & 90.83 \\
40.00 & 78.34 & 92.48 & 80.13 & 84.75 & 88.29 \\
60.00 & 73.75 & 91.35 & 78.52 & 80.51 & 84.11 \\
80.00 & 68.41 & 90.83 & 76.68 & 78.25 & 82.75 \\
100.00 & 67.28 & 89.21 & 75.32 & 76.48 & 81.85 \\
120.00 & 66.82 & 85.65 & 71.78 & 74.35 & 80.27 \\
140.00 & 63.56 & 83.28 & 68.71 & 70.13 & 79.42 \\
150.00 & 61.34 & 82.54 & 65.29 & 69.39 & 78.69 \\ Sum & 561.62 & 711.69 & 600.02 & 622.10 & 666.21 \\ Gain \% & 27 & 19 & 15 & 7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Packet deliver ratio values of Figure 13.  
As increasing the bandwidth of the links, the amount of data transmission augments. As a result, the needed energy enlarges as shown in Figure 16. GA-AOMDV requires the minimum energy compared to other protocols. In addition, and as shown in Figure 17, RTT is obviously superfast with the bandwidth as explained above. In Figure 18 with a wider bandwidth range, more data packets can be transmitted. Our protocol selects nodes that have higher residual energy. Therefore, passing through nodes that might die particularly during the data communications, because of a lack of energy, will be avoided and hence this enhances the throughput. GA-AOMDV achieves a gain in throughput with a range of 9% to 20% over other protocols. Mobility of the nodes results in routes disconnection. As a result, alternative routes should be optimized through the routes discovery process and this, in turn, would maximize the energy consumption. GA-AOMDV avoids such a process as other possible routes likely already exist. Accordingly, the used energy will be minimized as shown in Figure 19. On the other hand, having mobile nodes will increase the possibility of traffic problems and this, in turn, requires packets retransmissions. In this case, RTT augments with the node speed as shown in Figure 20.  
Figure 16: Energy Consumption vs. Average Bandwidth. Figure 17: RTT vs. Bandwidth.