## 4 Result and Discussion
### Comparative Analysis with Other Methods
For a pause time of 20, the proposed model achieves an average end delay of 0.04 s, compared to the average end delays of the existing SRABC, AODV, and DSR methods, which are 0.09, 0.19, and 0.197 s, respectively. For a pause time of 40, the proposed model achieves in 0.073 s, compared to the existing methods, which are 0.115, 0.178, and 0.19 s, respectively. For a pause time of 60, the proposed model achieves an average end delay of 0.132 s, compared to the average end delays of the existing methods, of 0.158, 0.187, and 0.2 s, respectively. For a pause time of 60, the proposed model achieves an average end delay of 0.132 s, compared to the average end delays of the existing methods, of 0.158, 0.187, and 0.2 s, respectively. For a pause time of 60, the proposed model achieves an average end delay of 0.132 s, compared to the average end delays of the existing methods, which are 0.158, 0.187, and 0.2 s, respectively. For a pause time of 80, the proposed model achieves an average end delay of 0.166 s, compared to the average end delays of the existing methods, which are 0.188, 0.2, and 0.218 s, respectively. For a pause time of 100, the proposed model achieves an average end delay of 0.172 s, compared to the average end delays of the existing methods, which are 0.198, 0.21, and 0.22 s, respectively. As  
AODV method pause time is 0.21 s, which the proposed method improves to 0.038 s. For a pause time of 100, the existing DSR method pause time is 0.22 s, which the proposed method improves to 0.048 s. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Packet delivery ratio (\%)**} & **Time (s)** & **20** & **40** & **60** & **80** & **100** \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Proposed** & 72.2 & 79.5 & 82.3 & 87.6 & 91.6 \\ \cline{2-7}  & SRABC & 69.5 & 76 & 78.6 & 84 & 89.1 \\ \hline  & HWMP & 52.54 & 64 & 66 & 72 & 78.2 \\ \hline  & GRP & 44 & 58 & 60 & 68 & 73.3 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Average end delay(s)**} & Pause time & 20 & 40 & 60 & 80 & 100 \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Proposed** & 19.2 & 20.5 & 21.3 & 22.6 & 23.6 \\ \cline{2-7}  & SRABC & 18.2 & 19.1 & 20 & 21.2 & 22 \\ \hline  & HWMP & 14.21 & 15.5 & 16.4 & 17.71 & 18.34 \\ \hline  & GRP & 12.34 & 13.42 & 14.34 & 15.45 & 16.12 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Throughput (packets)**} & **Time (s)** & 20 & 40 & 60 & 80 & 100 \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Proposed** & 580 & 940 & 1230 & 1880 & 2110 \\ \cline{2-7}  & SRABC & 350 & 700 & 950 & 1550 & 1780 \\ \hline  & HWMP & 170 & 530 & 790 & 1332 & 1510 \\ \hline  & GRP & 90 & 320 & 580 & 1190 & 1340 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Packet delivery ratio (\%)**} & **Time (s)** & **200** & **400** & **600** & **800** & **1000** \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Proposed** & 93.3 & 95.2 & 96.4 & 98.1 & 99.2 \\ \cline{2-7}  & SRABC & 91.7 & 94 & 95 & 96.5 & 98 \\ \cline{2-7}  & AODV & 84 & 85 & 90 & 91.5 & 94 \\ \cline{2-7}  & DSR & 71.5 & 75 & 79 & 87.2 & 91 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of proposed and existing methods for time. Figure 14: Average end delay(s) of the proposed methods by varying pause time. Figure 16 and Table 4 show the dropped packets of proposed and existing methods by varying time (s). At a time of 0 s, the proposed method achieves a number of dropped packets of 12.2, whereas for the existing SRABC, AODV, and DSR methods, the numbers of dropped packets are 19.5, 46 and 61, respectively. At a time of 100 s, the proposed method has 30.6 dropped packets, whereas the existing methods have 39.3, 60 and 76, respectively. At a time of 200 s, the proposed method has 41.8 dropped packets, whereas the existing methods have 48.5, 79, and 90, respectively. At a time of 300 s, the proposed method has 48.5 dropped packets, whereas the existing methods have 58.5, 88.5, and 98, respectively. At a time of 400 s, the proposed method has 57.6 dropped packets, whereas the existing methods have 69.7, 89, and 99.5, respectively. So, the generated graph proves that the recommended strategy achieves a very low packet drop ratio.