## 5 Experiments
### Simulation Results Analysis  
In order to intuitively demonstrate the performance improvement of the proposed AODV-EM protocol, this paper conducts comparative simulation experiments against the traditional AODV, OLSR [42], and DSDV [43] protocols, evaluating five key metrics: packet delivery rate, network throughput, average end-to-end delay, average jitter, and standard deviation of node residual energy. To ensure the reliability of the simulation results, this paper conducted five independent experiments for each indicator, followed by a comprehensive analysis of the results. The simulation outcomes for each indicator are presented below. (1) Comparison of packet delivery rate: Figure 9 presents the simulation results of four routing protocols in terms of packet delivery rate. Figure 9a illustrates that, as the number of nodes increases, the packet delivery rate for all protocols generally decreases. This decline is due to the growing complexity of the network topology, which leads to higher routing costs, including increased route discovery and maintenance overhead. As a result, network congestion rises, negatively impacting the packet delivery rate. Figure 9b shows the effect of node movement speed on the packet delivery rate. As node speed increases, the AODV-EM protocol outperforms the other three protocols, with the performance gap widening as node speed increases. This indicates that faster node movement leads to more frequent link breakages, destabilizing data transmission and reducing packet delivery rate. However, the AODV-EM protocol accounts for relative node mobility when establishing routes, resulting in more stable network links that are less susceptible to the effects of node movement. As a result, AODV-EM protocol maintains a higher packet delivery rate despite increased node speed. (2) Comparison of network throughput: Figure 10 presents the simulation results of four routing protocols in terms of network throughput. From Figure 10a,b, it is clear that the AODV-EM protocol and the AODV protocol outperform the OLSR protocol and the DSDV protocol in terms of network throughput. This advantage is primarily due to the on-demand routing approach used by the AODV protocol and the AODV-EM protocol, where route discovery and updates occur only when data transmission is required. This significantly reduces unnecessary routing control overhead, thereby improving overall network throughput. As the number of nodes or node movement speed increases, the AODV-EM protocol demonstrates greater stability in network throughput compared to the AODV protocol, with a slower decline in performance. This is because the AODV-EM \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters Name** & **Parameters Value** \\ \hline Version & NS-3.28 \\ Simulation Time & 300 s \\ Simulation Scenario Scope & 1000 m \(\times\) 1000 m \\ Number of Nodes & 50-140 \\ Maximum Transmission Distance & 200 m \\ Node Mobility Model & Random Waypoint Mobility (RWP) \\ Node Movement Speed & 5–50 m/s \\ Packet Length & 512 bits \\ Business Type & Constant Bit Rate (CBR) \\ Transport Layer Protocol & UDP \\ Mac Layer Protocol & IEEE 802.11b \\ Delay Model & Constant Propagation Delay Model \\ Node Initial Energy & 200 J \\ Energy Consumption for Sending Data & 0.05 J \\ Energy Consumption for Receiving Data & 0.03 J \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Simulation parameters configuration. protocol takes into account the relative mobility between nodes when selecting routes, allowing it to better adapt to dynamic network conditions and minimize the impact of link breakages, making it more resilient to changes in the network topology. (3) Comparison of average end-to-end delay: Figure 11 presents the simulation results comparing four protocols based on the average end-to-end delay. As shown in Figure 11a,b, the OLSR protocol, which continuously and periodically maintains network topology information, can quickly calculate the shortest path and update routes, achieving the best performance in terms of end-to-end delay.