## 5 Computational Experiments and Results
### Performance Evaluation  
In this Section, we present experimental results to demonstrate the effectiveness of our routing algorithm, NODQC. We also evaluate NODQC with other different session types of algorithms under the same average traffic loading in the network, and then compare the performance in terms of average end-to-end delay, delay jitter and system throughput with QoS satisfaction. Delay jitter is defined as the variance in the following tables and figures. Performance evaluation is defined in Table 7, a \(7\times 7\) square is simulated as the network topology with 660 s and measure the packets at last 600 s. For comparison with other routing algorithms, we use the session types whose average session arrival rate and packet arrival rate are equal to 0.25 and 40, respectively, and use different network sizes to show the performance of NODQC, OLSR, AODV, and DSDV routing algorithms. The time of our experiment is set at 660 s and the measurement time is the last 600 s. Increasing the number of nodes will also increase the number of broadcast packets and route table updating. From Tables 8 and 9 and Figure 5, the value of average end-to-end delay is shown to be increased and the system throughput with QoS is shown to be decreased with the average session arrival rate. This is because nodes exchange information every 5 s, but the sessions enter the network at a short time interval. Most sessions are consequently routed to sub-optimal paths due to a lack of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Value** \\ \hline Transmit and Receive Antenna Gain & 1.0 \\ Transmit and Receive Antenna Height & 1.5 (m) \\ Reception Threshold & 3.625 e\({}^{-10}\) \\ Carrier Sensing Threshold & 1.559 e\({}^{-11}\) \\ Transmission Range & 250 (m) \\ Interference Range & 550 (m) \\ Distance between Each Node & 200 (m) \\ UDP Packet Size & 1,000 (bytes) \\ Sending Interval of HELLO Message & 2 (s) \\ Sending Interval of TC Message & 5 (s) \\ Recording Interval of Fitting Data & 1 (s) \\ Number of Fitting Data & 10 \\ K & 5 \\ \(\beta\) & 1.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Parameters. As networks grow in size, the average path of each session lengthens with path selection becoming increasingly important. AE2 ED taken in the scalability scenario shows that delay is much less for NODQC as compared to others. As routes break, nodes have to discover new routes which lead to longer E2 ED (packets are buffered at the source during route discovery). According to the arc weight on each link is the combination of end-to-end delay from the user perspective and average delay from the system perspective, NODQC can choose other less or non-congested paths for the sessions and balance network-wide the traffic loading. This makes the routing strategy more flexible for making \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Delay Jitter (ms\({}^{2}\))**} \\ \hline Routing Algorithms & \(3\times 3\) & \(5\times 5\) & \(7\times 7\) & \(9\times 9\) \\ NODQC & \(3\times 3\) & \(5\times 5\) & \(7\times 7\) & \(9\times 9\) \\ NODQC & \(1.28128\) & \(2.522533\) & \(3.620345\) & \(4.792818\) \\ AODV & \(1.248075\) & \(2.339906\) & \(3.848888\) & \(5.456055\) \\ DSDV & \(1.220291\) & \(2.495117\) & \(3.873495\) & \(9.171553\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Experiment results of routing algorithms (average end-to-end delay). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**System Throughput with QoS (Kbps)**} \\ \hline Routing Algorithms & \(3\times 3\) & \(5\times 5\) & \(7\times 7\) & \(9\times 9\) \\ NODQC & \(716.849085\) & \(673.698465\) & \(632.062518\) & \(612.322159\) \\ OLSR & \(753.008325\) & \(691.484223\) & \(603.130035\) & \(556.022380\) \\ AODV & \(757.683145\) & \(700.203701\) & \(575.904857\) & \(516.320711\) \\ DSDV & \(773.355103\) & \(701.779457\) & \(602.953338\) & \(509.221205\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Experiment results of routing algorithms (system throughput with QoS).