**5.2 Test scenarios**

The simulation is conducted in three different scenarios. In the first scenario, the comparison of the three routing protocols is compared in various numbers of nodes. The number of nodes is set to 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 while the simulation time is fixed. In the second scenario, the routing protocols are evaluated in different simulation time while the number of nodes is fixed. The number of nodes is set to 30. The simulation time are set to 175, 225, 400, 575 and 750 second. In the third scenario, the routing protocols are evaluated in different node

speed . The node speed is set to 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 m/ s. The number of nodes is fixed to 30. Random Waypoint Mobility Model in common to the three scenarios considered below.

#### **5.2.1 Test scenario 1: Varying numbers of nodes**

In this scenario, all the three routing protocol are evaluated based on the three performance metric which are Packet Delivery Fraction, End-to-End Delay and Throughput. The simulation environments for this scenario are:


#### **5.2.1.1 Packet delivery fraction**

In the figure 1, x- axis represents the varying number of nodes and y- axis represents the packet delivery fraction . Figure 1, shows that A-AODV perform better when the number of nodes increases because nodes become more stationary will lead to more stable path from source to destination . DSDV and AODV performance dropped as number of nodes increase because more packets dropped due to link breaks. DSDV is better than AODV when the number of nodes increases. A-AODV improved the PDF since it has a definite route to destination without any link break.

Fig. 1. Packet Delivery Fraction in Scenario 1

#### **5.2.1.2 End-to-end delay**

In the figure 2 x-axis represents the varying number of nodes and y-axis represents the end to end delay in mille seconds. A-AODV does not produce so much delay even the number of nodes increased. It is better than the other two protocols. The performance of DSDV is slightly better than AODV especially when the number of nodes cross 30. It shows that, the DSDV protocol has greater delay than AODV.

This is mainly because of the stable routing table maintenance. A-AODV produces lower delay due to the fact that it uses flooding scheme in the route reply. Thus the delay is reduced to a greater extent.

Fig. 2. End-to-End Delay in Scenario 1

#### **5.2.1.3 Throughput**

In the figure 3, x- axis represents the varying number of nodes and y- axis represents the throughput.

From Figure 3, it is observed that DSDV is less prone to route stability compared to AODV when number of nodes increased . For A-AODV, the route stability is more so the throughput does not varied when number of nodes increases. DSDV protocol produces less throughputs when number of nodes are increased especially with a marginal difference after number of nodes is increased to 40.

#### **5.2.2 Test scenario 2: Varying simulation time**

In this scenario, all the three routing protocol are evaluated based on the three performance metric which are Packet Delivery Fraction, End-to-End Delay and Throughput. The simulation environments for this scenario are:


#### **5.2.2.1 Packet delivery fraction**

In the figure 4, x- axis represents the varying simulation time and y- axis represents the packet delivery fraction. Based on Figure 4, contrast to AODV, A-AODV performs better . It delivers the data packet regardless to mobility rate. DSDV has the better PDF rate than AODV which has the great variation in packet drop in 225.This great variation is because of more link failures due to mobility. For AODV, it shows significant dependence on route stability, thus its PDF is lower when the nodes change its position as simulation time increased .

Fig. 4. Packet Delivery Fraction in Scenario 2

#### **5.2.2.2 End-to-end delay**

In the figure 5, x-axis represents the varying simulation time and y-axis represents the end to end delay in mille seconds . From the figure 5, it is inferred that A-AODV exhibits lower

Fig. 5. End-to-End Delay in Scenario 2

average end-to-end delay all the time regardless to node mobility rate compared to the other two protocols. AODV uses a flooding scheme in route reply to create a definite route to destination to avoid link breaks. So it has lower end-to-end delay time compare to others. AODV and DSDV exhibit more or less same end-to-end delay.
