## 5 Results  
The results shown in Table 3 are the average values generated by implementing the power-aware biologically inspired self-organized routing protocol (P-BIOSARP), the encryption-enabled biologically inspired self-organized routing protocol (E-BIOSARP), the biologically inspired self-organized routing protocol (BIOSARP), and the secure real-time routing protocol with load distribution (SRTLD) in NS-2. A total of about ninety-two experiments were performed with different scenarios, which included initially varying the number of nodes, using different packet rates, increasing the node speed, using mobile nodes, and on the security side, injecting malicious nodes. In addition to the results given in Table 3, the time complexity of the algorithm with the communication results is  
s 14.58793 \(8\) RTR -- 41 biosarp r 14.59118 \(7\) RTR -- 41 biosarp where the difference in sending and receiving the RTR packet is 0.00325 s.  
The energy comparison between P-BIOSARP and E-BIOSARP is shown in Figure 6, where the number of nodes is changed from 8 to 50 and then to 121 while keeping the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Routing Protocol** & **Energy Per Packet** & **Delivery Ratio** & **Packet Overhead** \\ \hline SRTLD & 0.378512 & 0.552756 & 20.676254 \\ \hline BIOSARP & 0.326386 & 0.663456 & 5.34478 \\ \hline E-BIOSARP & 0.3491854 & 0.6073718 & 7.02823 \\ \hline P-BIOSARP & 0.212207516 & 0.3907988 & 73.678464 \\ \hline E-BIOSARP with malicious activity and increase in nodes & 0.2919038 & 0.651960333 & 6.655437333 \\ \hline P-BIOSARP with malicious activity and increase in nodes & 0.10608872 & 0.648336 & 8.357306 \\ \hline E-BIOSARP with malicious activity and increase in malicious nodes & 0.151109922 & 0.6457558 & 4.4907028 \\ \hline P-BIOSARP with malicious activity and increase in malicious nodes & 0.150090122 & 0.6399052 & 4.4263052 \\ \hline E-BIOSARP with malicious activity and mobile and malicious nodes & 0.24987561 & 0.166068 & 113.925225 \\ \hline P-BIOSARP with malicious activity and mobile and malicious nodes & 0.149679595 & 0.273272 & 43.325 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Experimental Results. packet rate at 3.6 packets per second (p/s), and the simulation was run for 300 s. In the scenario with a total of eight nodes, the number of malicious nodes is four, namely, 2, 4, 6, and 7, as shown in Figure 3. In the scenarios with 50, as shown in Figure 4, and 121 nodes, the number of malicious nodes is increased to twenty, namely, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, as shown in Figure 5.  
Figure 7 shows the results of experimentation with the same scenario and compares the PDR between P-BIOSARP and E-BIOSARP. The PO, that is, the control packets required to transfer a single data packet, between P-BIOSARP and E-BIOSARP is shown in Figure 8.  
Figure 6: \(batt_{xc}\) vs. Number of Nodes Comparison between P-BIOSARP and E-BIOSARP. Figure 7: PDR vs. Number of Nodes Comparison between P-BIOSARP and E-BIOSARP. In addition to varying the number of nodes in scenarios, the energy comparison between P-BIOSARP and E-BIOSARP was compared, the results of which are shown in Figure 9, by increasing malicious nodes in the network, as given in Figure 5. The number of malicious nodes was altered from 4 (malicious node IDs 22, 24, 14, and 16) to 8 (malicious node IDs 22, 24, 14, 16, 21, 23, 15, and 13), 12 (malicious node IDs 22, 24, 14, 16, 21, 23, 15, 13, 18, 10, 11, and 19), 16 (malicious node IDs 22, 24, 14, 16, 21, 23, 15, 13, 18, 10, 11, 19, 4, 8, 2, and 6), and then 20 (malicious node IDs 22, 24, 14, 16, 21, 23, 15, 13, 18, 10, 11, 19, 4, 8, 2, 6, 9, 17, 12, and 20), while the number of nodes was fixed at 121, the packet rate was fixed at 3.6 p/s, and the total time was 300 s.  
Figure 10 shows the results of experimentation with the same scenario to compare the PDR between P-BIOSARP and E-BIOSARP. The PO comparison between P-BIOSARP and E-BIOSARP is shown in Figure 11.  
Figure 8: PO vs.