## 6 Evaluation Performances
### Implementation
The energy cost per packet (Figure 13) keeps the same shape as the packet delivery ratio (Figure 11) in the marg of 20-60 nodes since both protocols provide approximately the same results. On the other side, from 80 nodes on, the obtained curve illustrates exactly the representation of Equation (10), where the \(E_{cpp}\) is inversely proportional to the PDR. Figure 14 gives an overview of the total energy consumed in the network based on its density. We see that the MHAR-OLSR consumes more energy than the OLSR protocol in general. Nevertheless, we notice that the energy consumption in OLSR decreases in the high density [120-200 nodes], which is expected since the \(E_{rec}\) decreases too. Figure 12: End-to-End delay as function of density. Figure 13: Energy cost per packet as function of density. The main reasons for consuming energy in the MHAR-OLSR protocol vs. the OLSR protocol are its ability to manage route changes and the complexity of the implemented Dijkstra and path classification algorithms. ## 7 Conclusions & Perspectives

This research work addressed the problem of communication within heterogeneous ad hoc networks. These are constituted by multiple types of devices not having the same characteristics. The study gives an overview of different protocols used in this specific network. It also presents our original multi-path heterogeneous routing protocol (MHAR) divided into four steps to ensure direct communication between the mixed nodes. Its concept has been combined with the OLSR protocol, creating a new version named MHAR-OLSR. The modelization of this new proposition within the framework of colored Petri nets has the important advantage of understanding the pros and cons of its functional behavior. The application of MHAR-OLSR in a chosen case study, like a heterogeneous ad hoc network composed of the MANET, VANET, and FANET nodes (HAdN_MVF), gives a clear idea of the estimated results. According to the result analysis, we can say that the MHAR-OLSR performs better in the HAdN_MVF network compared to the OLSR routing protocol, although it consumes more power. So far, we have seen in this study the MHAR concept and the integration of its three steps (node identification, path calculation, and path classification) in the standard OLSR protocol. And we have also tested the impact of the MHAR-OLSR version on QoS of the network compared to the OLSR protocol. In future work, we will add the path choice function of the MHAR concept in our case study and test its influence on network performance. Based on all the results we will obtain, we will discuss the design of an appropriate MHAR protocol architecture that will be suitable for all types of ad hoc networks: terrestrial (WSN, MANET, VANET, wireless body area network \"WBAN\" [45]), airborne (FANET), and maritime (optical WSN \"OWSN\" [46]). Our protocol will ensure that heterogeneous ad hoc networks grouping the different ad hoc networks categories will be able to communicate reliably with better performance while always respecting the nature of each component. Conceptualization, C.B. ; Supervision, A.H.; Validation, A.H. and N.M.; Writing--original draft, C.B. ; Writing--review & editing, C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Figure 14: Total energy consumed as a function of density. This research received no external funding. **Institutional Review Board Statement**: Not applicable. **Informed Consent Statement**: Not applicable. **Data Availability Statement**: Not applicable. **Conflicts of Interest**: The authors declare no conflict of interest.