Busari S.A. et.al (2018)22 mentioned that performance of cellular systems does not scale proportionally with increase in the employed mmWave bandwidth.
Feeney (2001)6 performed imitation learning for DSR and AODV in mobile ad-hoc network and observed that DSR achieve superior than AODV protocol in packet delivery & high mobility. Jayakumar and Gopinath (2008)7 measured the performance of DSR and AODV. Jain and Shrivastava (2011)8 found that AODV achieves improved average end-to-end latency in the two ray ground model, while DSR achieves higher overall performance in the path loss propagation model.
Sreerama and Das (2011)9scrutinized with the intention of while boost the pause time DSR go one better than AODV in phrases of packet delivery ratio. Shah et al., (2008)10 analyzed that in stumpy mobility DSR carry out fine but in case of lofty mobility AODV perform superior than DSR. Parekh and Wandra (2013)11 conducted simulation study and results indicated that DSDV is more preferable for a network with low mobility and less number of nodes. Additionally, research revealed that AODV works better in high mobility scenarios.
Nand P., Astya R and Ali A. W. (2016)12 have utilized several mobility models & assess the AODV protocol's performance in a star topology. On a variety of parameters, including jitter, throughput, dropped packets, end-to-end delay, energy consumption in various processing modes, and percentage of time spent in various processing modes, performance analysis and evaluation has been conducted. On the QualNET 5.0, simulation has been performed; the study reveals variation in the performance on several criteria
Pandey K and Swaroop A (2011)13 analyzed the performance of AODV, DSR, ZRP and DSDV. AODV and DSR are more reliable than ZRP and DSDV. Pahuja et al., (2012)15 have done the comparative study for DSDV, AODV, DSR, TORA’s and ZRP routing protocols. Their results indicated that the DSDV is not satisfactory for any mobile network. A TORA show is comparatively deprived when throughput and packet delivery ratio are well thought-out.
Nand and Sharma (2011)16 conducted a simulation study using Qualnet 5.0.2 simulator on AODV, DSDV and DYMO routing protocols. According to simulation data, AODV performs better in terms of packet delivery than both DSR and DYMO routing protocols.
Kaur and Rai (2012)17 provided the a summary of the current routing protocols and stated that it is tricky to decide routing protocol in favor of dissimilar state of affairs as there is exchange between a variety of protocols. Kunz, T. (2008)18 studied different variants of OLSR protocol and compared the protocol performance for realistic and ideal versions. Wang, Y. (2010)19 presented an energy management model in his present study. With this energy model, he used an extended version of DSR routing protocol for further energy control. Simulation results indicated so as to the suggested routing protocol with power control mode could attain superior concert and extended the lifetime of network.
Maan, F. and Mazhar, N. (2011)20 have evaluated the feat of MANET routing protocols respecting mobility models. The simulation consequences point out that Node mobility significantly affects how well routing methods perform. Wang, T. and Huang, C. (2012)21 have evaluated that network life span rely deeply on the energy utilization of nodes. Result shows that the routing protocols have modest effect on node energy utilization based on slack traffic situation.
Kafhali, S. E. and Haqiq, A. (2013)23 have evaluated AODV, DSR and DSDV routings protocols with Random Waypoint, Mnhattan Grid and Reference Point Group mobility models were used in this study. Er-Rouidi et. al. (2016)24 studied energy consumption of AODV,DSR,DSDV and OLSR.P. K. et al. (2016)25 compare the AODV and DYMO code of conduct with approbation to Generic, Mica-motes and MicaZ energy models for a exacting simulation situation using QualNet simulator. Communication has been evaluated regarding generic, Mica-motes and MicaZ energy models for a exacting simulation situation. It was originate that the Mica motes power model is most excellent as contrast to MicaZ and generic power models.
Kumar Lubna Naaz Fatima at. el.(2019)29, centered on MANET's energy efficiency. Wenjuan Li et.al (2019)26 because nodes in MANETs switch between several modes, such as transmitting, receiving, idle, and sleep, this increases consumption. Soheila Ghaneet. al (2020)30 network lifetime is shortened by battery power. Therefore, it is given higher emphasis to decrease system power consumption, which will prolong the battery's life. The researcher GuojiXu et.al (2018)31 and Zhenyu Zhouet. et al (2019)28 have covered number of past studies to have a firsthand understanding of the subject matter of the study. Many aspects related to result of mobility and power consumption in Ad hoc routing protocols in different scenarios are touched in present review of literature. Theme of the previous studies covered the range from recital assessment of routing protocols to analysis of mobility outcome resting on power utilization in MANETs.
According to Ako Abdullah et al(2022)32, the proposed E-AODV routing scheme performs better than Stable and bandwidth aware and traditional AODV routing protocols in terms of PDR, average network throughput, average end-to-end delay, and normalized routing overhead. Kumar, S. and R. Sidharth(2021)34 evaluated the performance of AODV,DSR and ZRP under various mobility models including file base mobility. In order to accurately evaluate VANETs, computer simulation scenarios are created to effectively replicate human driving behaviour. Boucetta, S. I.et.al. (2021)35 discuss these existing solutions and the need to improve them into intelligent tools.
This paper critically analyze energy consumption in file and random waypoint mobility models concerning generic, mica-motes and micaZ energy models which are not taken up in any research work.