## 4 Methodology
### TMR Routing Protocol
Figure 11: Comparison of FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for end-to-end delay with different packet sizes. In Figure 15, increasing the number of nodes as the processing time, to find the efficient route among several possible routes, increases, and therefore the end-to-end delay augments. In the case of multipath protocols, the delay is shorter as alternative paths are always available if a link fails. TMR algorithm can detect and select the least congested link, so the queuing delay will be minimal, and as a result, the end-to-end delay will be relatively short compared to other protocols. The corresponding data is noted in Table 4. TMR reduces the end-to-end delay by 20.9, 13.6, and 9.9 percent compared to FF-AOMDV, EGSR, and QMR, respectively. Figure 5.0 Comparison of FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for throughput with faulty node. Figure 5.1 Comparison of FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for energy consumption with faulty node. In Figure 16, it is visible that as the number of nodes increases, the number of packets delivered decreases. This is owing to the congested traffic where the obvious amount of data will be dropped and lost. On the other hand, and as indicated earlier, TMR selects the path based on its reliability, so it outperforms other protocols. Additionally, TMR uses the threshold mechanism, and as a result, the packet loss decreases. Figure 5.2 Comparison of FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for throughput with number of nodes. Figure 5.3 Comparison of FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for end-to-end delay with number of nodes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**\#Node** & **FF-AOMDV** & **EGSR** & **QMR** & **TMR** \\ \hline
40 & 0.85 & 0.71 & 0.67 & 0.61 \\
50 & 0.93 & 0.78 & 0.72 & 0.63 \\
60 & 0.97 & 0.86 & 0.81 & 0.69 \\
70 & 1.05 & 0.95 & 0.92 & 0.74 \\
80 & 1.12 & 1.06 & 1.03 & 0.88 \\
90 & 1.25 & 1.13 & 1.1 & 0.98 \\
100 & 1.34 & 1.28 & 1.25 & 1.14 \\
110 & 1.45 & 1.42 & 1.32 & 1.25 \\
120 & 1.62 & 1.48 & 1.45 & 1.32 \\
130 & 1.72 & 1.59 & 1.53 & 1.49 \\ sum & 12.3 & 11.26 & 10.8 & 9.73 \\ saving (\%) & 20.9 & 13.6 & 9.9 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Number of nodes vs. end-to-end delay of Figure 15.

Figure 16: Comparison of FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for PLR with number of nodes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**\#Node** & **FF-AOMDV** & **EGSR** & **QMR** & **TMR** \\ \hline
40 & 2.46 & 2.64 & 2.72 & 2.94 \\
50 & 2.37 & 2.51 & 2.58 & 2.71 \\
60 & 2.33 &



A consequence of involving more nodes in data transmission is that a greater amount of energy is going to be used. Every node may receive routing packets and forward them. In this case, the number of neighboring nodes to the sender would increase, and consequently, the energy depletion of the MANET nodes is faster. The result of the energy consumption with the number of nodes is depicted in Figure 17.

#### 5.2.6 Assessment of the Simulation Results Based on Mobility Speed

When the mobility speed of the vehicles increases, links incur more instability which in turn would lose more data packets, and this agrees with [41]. Accordingly, fewer packets would be delivered successfully to the destination node, and as a result, the throughput will be diminished. Minimum RTT, utilized in the TMR mechanism, may include less number of nodes and also a shorter distance where packets are traveling. In addition, minimum RTT implies less congested routes where the possibility of having data loss is low, leading to more stable paths. This would minimize the number of nodes that have a high speed in the selected stable route. Therefore, the negative impact of vehicle mobility on the route stability is reduced, and this accordingly enhances the throughput of the TMR protocol compared to other protocols as shown in Figure 18. At speed zero (non-moving vehicles such as parked ones), TMR has a better throughput than other protocols as well as when the mobility speed is higher.