## 6 Evaluation Performances
### Implementation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Parameters**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Values**} \\ \hline MANET nodes speed & [0, 2] m/s (\(\simeq\)7 km/h) & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline VANET nodes speed & [0, 17] m/s (\(\simeq\)61 km/h) & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline UAV nodes speed & [0, 5] m/s (\(\simeq\)18 km/h) & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Alpha (\(\alpha\)) & 0.5 & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Network components} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Number of**} & \multirow{2}{*}{20} & \multirow{2}{*}{40} & \multirow{2}{*}{60} & \multirow{2}{*}{80} & \multirow{2}{*}{100} & \multirow{2}{*}{120} & \multirow{2}{*}{140} & \multirow{2}{*}{160} & \multirow{2}{*}{180} & \multirow{2}{*}{200} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Nodes**} & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-11}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**“50\%”**} & \multirow{2}{*}{10} & \multirow{2}{*}{20} & \multirow{2}{*}{30} & \multirow{2}{*}{40} & \multirow{2}{*}{50} & \multirow{2}{*}{60} & \multirow{2}{*}{70} & \multirow{2}{*}{80} & \multirow{2}{*}{90} & \multirow{2}{*}{100} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-11}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MANET**} & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-11}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**“40\%”**} & \multirow{2}{*}{8} & \multirow{2}{*}{16} & \multirow{2}{*}{24} & \multirow{2}{*}{32} & \multirow{2}{*}{40} & \multirow{2}{*}{48} & \multirow{2}{*}{56} & \multirow{2}{*}{64} & \multirow{2}{*}{72} & \multirow{2}{*}{80} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-11}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**“10\%”**} & \multirow{2}{*}{2} & \multirow{2}{*}{4} & \multirow{2}{*}{6} & \multirow{2}{*}{8} & \multirow{2}{*}{10} & \multirow{2}{*}{12} & \multirow{2}{*}{14} & \multirow{2}{*}{16} & \multirow{2}{*}{18} & \multirow{2}{*}{20} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-11}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FANET**} & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._From 80 nodes on, the single route in OLSR takes a long time before the node drops the packets as the time-out of the path expires. Moreover, the PDR ratio in OLSR is also influenced by the presence of more possible heterogeneous routes in the network, due to the increase in the proportion of VANET and FANET components, according to Table 2.

With this being said, the MHAR-OLSR protocol delivers more packets linking to the fact that the multipath establishes more paths between the source and the destination without being affected by the heterogeneity of the network. Moreover, according to PDR results shown in article [10] (figure 10: Ratio of Delivered Packet), it is clear that the presence of ATR nodes influences the outcome of the PDR. We notice then that the PDR obtained in our simulation results is more significant than those of ATR. So we can say that MHAR-OLSR is more efficient in term of packet delivery ratio than ATR as a routing protocol within heterogeneous ad hoc networks. Figure 12 presents the achieved end-to-end delay as a function of node density for each routing protocol tested. We observe inside the interval 20-60 nodes that the OLSR has an E2E delay between 50-200 ms. However, when the density increases, the single path becomes longer, and the values of the metric can reach up to 1700 ms in the network composed of 200 devices. The presence of VANET and FANET nodes gives a plus to MHAR-OLSR that accepts their characteristics and benefits from their big range. In fact, the curve shows that the E2E delay values are between 30-150 ms within a network of 20 to 100 nodes, and the peak equals 700 ms at 200 nodes. We conclude that the density impacts this metric for both protocols. However, the MHAR-OLSR offers better performance compared to the original OLSR. Figures 13 and 14 allow us to evaluate the energy efficiency of the studied protocols. Based on the Equation (5), we deduce:

\[D_{p}=PDR\times S_{p} \tag{9}\]

So, we can write the Equation (7) in the following format:

\[E_{cpp}=\frac{E_{total}}{PDR\times S_{p}} \tag{10}\]

Figure 11: Packet delivery ratio as function of density.