## 8 Simulation Results and Analysis  
Applying just one type of traffic load in the simulation environment may not be adequate to creating a practical plan of routing protocol behaviors in ad hoc network. Applications served by ad hoc networks can produce several types of traffic that alternate between data, speech and video. In this section, we created diverse simulation scenarios where various traffic load patterns are implemented and different network parameters are considered. Routing protocols will be evaluated and analyzed with respect to energy consumption, average throughput, normalized routing load, packet delivery fraction and total dropped packets. 1. **Simulation Scenario I Simulation Setup:**  
* **Simulation Tool:** NS3 network simulator
* **Area:** 1000 m \(\times\) 1000 m
* **Node Speeds:** 1 m/s: 10 m/s
* **Packet Sending rates:** low speeds at 12 and 14 p/s and high speeds at 28 and 32 p/s
* **Metrics:** average energy consumption, throughput, NRL, PDF and TDP  
**Use Case:** In disaster recovery scenarios, MANETs are vital for establishing communication among rescue teams and command centers. This scenario focuses on the evaluation of the performance of AODV, DSDV and DSR under varying packet sending rates and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Scenario I** & **Scenario II** & **Scenario III** \\ \hline Traffic class & regular & regular or irregular & regular or irregular \\ \hline Packet rate (p/s) & 12, 14, 16, 20, 28, 32 & 20 & 20 \\ \hline Packet size (byte) & 512 & 512 & 512 \\ \hline Node velocity (m/s) & 20 & 20 & 0, 4, 8, 16, 20, 24, 28 \\ \hline Pause time (s) & 5 & 5 & 5 \\ \hline Energy reference & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.15 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Scenario IV** & **Scenario V** \\ \hline Area & 500 m \(\times\) 500 m & 500 m \(\times\) 500 m \\ \hline Simulation interval (s) & 150 & 150 \\ \hline Nodes quantity & 20 & 20 \\ \hline Extreme connections & 10 & 10 \\ \hline Seed & 1 & 1 \\ \hline Initial energy node (J) & 25 & 80 \\ (transmit/receive) & (1.8/1.0) & (1.8/1.0) \\ \hline Idle power & 0.095 & 0.095 \\ \hline Traffic class & Joint rate & Joint rate \\ \hline Packet rate (p/s) & 12, 14, 16, 20, 28, 32 & 20 \\ \hline Packet Size (byte) & 512 & 512 \\ \hline Node velocity (m/s) & 20 & 0, 4, 8, 16, 20, 24, 28 \\ \hline Pause time (s) & 5 & 5 \\ \hline Energy reference & 0.15 & 0.15 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Simulation parameters for joint traffic. different node speeds, to inspect how these protocols are effective in coordination and in making decisions on time. **Scenario Goals**:  
1. Determine how each protocol manages energy consumption at different packet sending rates
2. Assess the data delivery capability of each protocol under different traffic loads
3. Analyze routing overhead induced by each protocol
4. Evaluate the effectiveness and the reliability of data delivery  
**Results and Findings:**  
1. **Energy Consumption:** Figure 6 demonstrates protocol behaviors in terms of average energy consumption for different packet rates. The main findings are: 1. DSDV exhibited the best performance because of its efficient routing tables at low packet rates 2. AODV showed improved energy efficiency at high packet rates 3. DSR began to perform better than DSDV at packet rates higher than 20 p/s
2. **Throughput Evaluation:** Figure 7 illustrates the effect of packet rate change on routing protocol behaviors when throughput metric is measured. The simulation outcomes can be summarized as follows: 1. DSR provided the most optimal throughput, attributed to its lower routing overhead at higher packet rates. 2. DSDV had the lowest throughput, with noticeable improvement as packet rates increased. 3. **NRL Analysis:** NRL metric is examined in Figure 8 and the simulation outcomes clarify the following:  
Figure 6: Average consumed energy vs. packet sending rate (regular traffic).