J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2, 589-613; doi:10.

3390/jsan2030589
OPEN ACCESS
Journal of Sensor
and Actuator Networks
ISSN 2224-2708
www.mdpi.com/journal/jsan/
Article

Performance Analysis and Comparison of Bluetooth Low

Energy with IEEE 802.15.4 and SimpliciTI
Konstantin Mikhaylov 1,*, Nikolaos Plevritakis 2 and Jouni Tervonen 1
1
Oulu Southern Institute, University of Oulu, Ylivieska, 84100, Finland;
E-Mail: [email protected]
2
Department of Electronic Engineering, Technological Educational Institute of Crete, Chania, 73135,
Greece; E-Mail: [email protected]

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];

Tel.: +358-468-841-370.

Received: 17 July 2013; in revised form: 12 August 2013 / Accepted: 14 August 2013 /
Published: 22 August 2013

Abstract: Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) is a recently developed energy-efficient short-range

wireless communication protocol. In this paper, we discuss and compare the maximum
peer-to-peer throughput, the minimum frame turnaround time, and the energy consumption
for three protocols, namely BLE, IEEE 802.15.4 and SimpliciTI. The specifics and the
main contributions are the results both of the theoretical analysis and of the empirical
measurements, which were executed using the commercially available hardware
transceivers and software stacks. The presented results reveal the protocols’ capabilities
and enable one to estimate the feasibility of using these technologies for particular
applications. Based on the presented results, we draw conclusions regarding the feasibility
and the most suitable application scenarios of the BLE technology.

Keywords: Bluetooth Low Energy; BLE; 802.15.4, SimpliciTI, performance; throughput;

latency; efficiency; measurements; energy

1. Introduction

During recent years, energy-efficient short-range wireless communication technologies have

become a hot topic for research and development. The efforts of researchers and engineers have
increased the energy efficiency of and reduced the monetary costs for wireless data transmission.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 590

Therefore, for many applications today, wireless data transfer appears to be more efficient than data
transfer using wired media [1,2].
Nowadays, numerous transceivers implementing the different wireless communication protocols are
available on the market. One of the recently suggested protocols is Bluetooth Low-Energy (BLE),
which is aimed at applications and products requiring low current consumption and low
implementation complexity and having low production costs [3]. During the development of BLE and
shortly after its introduction, it was predicted that the protocol would have a very wide application area.
For example, in [4] the authors predicted that BLE-based devices would dominate the Wireless Sensor
Network (WSN) application market by 2015. Nonetheless, even today, i.e., more than two years after
the finalization of the BLE specification and over a year since the appearance of the first commercial
BLE transceivers, the features of the protocol itself and the capabilities of the hardware (HW) and
software (SW) implementing the protocol are still not broadly known. Therefore, in this paper we
study BLE and compare it with a proprietary radio protocol and with IEEE 802.15.4, which is today
one of the most popular technologies for energy-efficient short-range wireless data transmission.
The specifics and the major contributions of this paper are the results of the heuristic analysis of
the protocols’ capabilities and the results of the empirical measurements that we performed using the
real-life off-the-shelf transceivers. These data reveal the maximum throughput and the minimum
turnaround time one can potentially achieve using the protocols under discussion, and they reveal the
values of these parameters for real transceivers. Additionally, in the paper, we discuss the energy
consumption of the real-life transceivers implementing the protocols. All the transceivers that we used
for our experiments have the same processing core, which is based on the 8051 microcontroller. This
enabled us to estimate the complicity of the protocols based on the resources consumed by each
protocol stack. These data are presented and discussed in the paper as well.
We first discuss some of the previous research focused on the protocols under discussion in
Section 2. In Section 3 we provide a brief overview of the protocols and present the analytic
estimations of the maximum throughput and the minimum turnaround time. Section 4 describes the
details of our testbed and the experiments. Section 5 presents and discusses in detail the obtained
analytic and experimental results. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper, summarizes the obtained
results and discusses the feasibility and the most suitable application scenarios for BLE.

2. Related Work

2.1. IEEE 802.15.4

The initial revision of the IEEE 802.15.4 standard was introduced in 2003. During the following
years, multiple research papers discussing different aspects of the IEEE 802.15.4 protocol were published.
The performance of IEEE 802.15.4 has been studied in [5]. There, the authors state that for the
single-hop scenario, the upper bound of the throughput in the IEEE 802.15.4 nonbeacon-enabled network
is defined by the time required to transfer the frame header, data, acknowledgement (if used) and wait
period between frames. According to their analysis, the maximum effective throughput for
unacknowledged single-hop data transmission is 140.9 kbit/s [5]. Nonetheless, the authors did not account
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 591

for the fact that some service operations (including, e.g., the carrier sense multiple access (CSMA)
algorithm) can be executed during the interframe space (IFS) period [6].
In [7] and [8], the authors accounted for the possibility of executing the CSMA algorithm during the
IFS. In [7], Latre et al. used the default values for the variable defining the operation of the CSMA
algorithm and obtained a maximum throughput of 148.8 kbit/s and 162.2 kbit/s for acknowledged and
unacknowledged single-hop transmission, respectively. Choi and Zhou [8] optimized the CSMA algorithm
parameters and reported maximum single-hop throughput values of 167.6 kbit/s and 189.5 kbit/s for
acknowledged and unacknowledged transmission, respectively. In [6] we have confirmed these results
and provided the analytic framework for IEEE 802.15.4 throughput analysis for different operation
modes. The transmission delay, end-to-end latency and packet delivery rate analyses for the
Electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring system based on IEEE 802.15.4 have been studied by Liang and
Balasingham in [9].

2.2. BLE

BLE was introduced as a part of the Bluetooth Core Specification version 4.0 [3] in June 2010.
Although quite significant time has passed since the standard was developed, there are only a few
research papers discussing BLE.
The implementation of the BLE transceiver or of particular transceiver components was discussed
by the authors in [10–12]. In their work, Zhang et al. [10] and Masuch and Delgado-Restituto [11]
suggested ways to implement the demodulators of the BLE receiver. In [12] Wong et al. presented a
new low power transceiver chip that supports three different protocols, including BLE.
The feasibility of BLE for real-life applications and the lessons learned while developing
applications using BLE technology were discussed in [13–15]. The authors of all these papers
considered utilizing BLE for different biomedical use cases.
In [16] the authors analysed the network discovery process in BLE and estimated the average
latency and the average energy consumption for it. In [17] and [18] the authors analysed and used the
simulation tools to estimate the throughput and the latency for BLE communication. They reported that
the maximum application layer throughput for BLE equals 236.7 kbit/s [17]. Additionally, the authors
in [17] reported the experimental energy consumption measurements for a real BLE transceiver and
pointed out that due to the limitations of the used BLE stack in practice, they were able to obtain a
maximum throughput of only 58.48 kbit/s. The energy consumption of BLE was also discussed in [19]
and [20]. In [19] the results revealing the Texas Instruments (TI) CC2540 BLE transceiver’s power
consumption were presented and discussed. In [20] the authors reported and compared the results of
the power consumption measurements for the BLE and ZigBee [21] transceivers, showing that BLE’s
energy utility is 2.5 times better than the one of ZigBee [20].

2.3. SimpliciTI

SimpliciTI is a proprietary radio protocol developed by TI for its radio modules, and we are not
aware of any research focusing on the performance evaluation of the protocol. Nonetheless, the
protocol has been used to implement radio communication in [22–24].
J.
J Sens. Actuuator Netw. 2013, 2 5992

3.
3 Descriptiion of the Protocols
P

3.1.
3 IEEE 8002.15.4

The first version off the IEEE 802.15.4 sstandard waas introduceed in 20033 under the name IEE EE
802.15.4-200
8 03 [25]. Twwo revision
ns, namely IIEEE 802.1 15.4-2006 [2 26] and IEEEE 802.15..4-2011 [277],
followed
f in 22006 and 20011, respecttively [6]. T
The standardd [27] defines the physiical (PHY) layer and thhe
medium
m acceess control (MAC)
( subllayer and aim
ms to provid de low comp plexity, low
w power conssumption annd
lo
ow data raate wirelesss connectiv vity among inexpensiv ve devices. The most recent rev vision of thhe
standard
s [277] defines tw
welve PHY options. Off these, the 2450
2 direct--sequence sspread specttrum (DSSS S)
option,
o whicch utilizes the license--free industtrial, scientiific and meedical (ISM M) 2.4 GHz band, is thhe
most
m widelyy used todayy [28]. Thuss, while speaaking about IEEE 802.1 15.4, we willl refer to thiis PHY layeer,
unless
u statedd otherwise.

Figuree 1. Structuure of IEEEE 802.15.4 S

SF (example of a superrframe (SF)) with six sllots for
contenntion access period (CAAP) and ten slots for an
n contention
n-free periodd (CFP) witth three
guarannteed time sllots (GTS)) [27].

The standdard [27] sup

upports two types
t of perrsonal area networks
n (PAANs). The ffirst supportted PAN typpe
iss the beaconn-enabled PAN, which contains a ccoordinator node that periodically ttransmits beeacon framees.
The
T beacon frames are used u to syncchronize all devices witthin a PAN and bound tthe superfraames (SFs). A
beacon
b fram
me contains the
t data thatt identify thhe PAN and d describe th
he used SF sstructure and d can includde
some
s user-deefined data [27]. As revvealed in Figgure 1, an SF
S can have active and iinactive porrtions. Durinng
th
he inactive period, no datad transferr is expecteed and the nodes
n can sw
witch to a loow-power sleep mode to t
save
s energy.. The activee period is divided
d into 16 equal slots that form
m a contentition access period
p (CAP P)
and,
a optionaally, a conteention-free period
p (CFP P). The beaccon intervall (BI) and thhe SF durattion (SD) arre
defined
d in thhe standard by:
b
= ∙2 (11)
= ∙2 (22)
where
w SO annd BO standd for the SF F and the beeacon orderrs, and aBasseSuperfram meDuration is a constannt
equal
e to 9600 symbol perriods (i.e., 15.36
1 ms forr 2450 DSS SS PHY) and d 0 ≤ SO ≤ BO ≤14. AsA easy to seee,
th
he BI and SD D for IEEE 802.15.4 24 450 DSSS ccan have thee values rang ging from 155.36 ms to 251.66
2 s. Thhe
CAP
C starts iimmediatelyy after the beacon
b and sshould last at least aM
MinCAPLenggth symbols (i.e., 440, as a
defined
d in [227]) under normal
n condditions. Therrefore, the minimum
m len
ngth of the C
CAP periodd for the 24550
J.
J Sens. Actuuator Netw. 2013, 2 5993

DSSS
D PHY llayer is 7 ms.
m If used, th he CFP startts on the slo
ot boundary immediatelyy following the CAP annd
closes
c beforee the end off the active portion of tthe SF [27]]. The CFP can includee up to seveen guaranteeed
tiime slots ((GTSs) thatt are assign ned by thee network coordinator and used for unidireectional daata
trransferring bbetween thee PAN coorrdinator andd a device asssociated wiith the coorddinator [27]]. A GTS caan
occupy
o moree than one sllot period [2 27] (see Figuure 1).
The seconnd type of network
n sup
pported by IE EEE 802.15 5.4 is the noonbeacon-ennabled one. Although thhe
beacon
b fram
mes in a nonbbeacon-enab bled networkk can be useed e.g., to su
upport netwoork discovery, the SFs ini
th
hose networrks are not used.
u
IEEE 802.15.4-20111 defines tw wo types oof channel access mecchanisms too be used for differennt
networks
n [27]. The noonbeacon-en nabled PAN Ns use the unslotted
u Carrier
C Sensse Multiple Access witth
Collision
C Avvoidance (C CSMA-CA)) algorithm.. The beaco on-enabled PANs use the slotted d CSMA-CA
mechanism
m ffor transmittting the dataa and comm mand frames within the CAP.
C The CCSMA-CA is not used for fo
trransmitting the beaconss and acknow wledgementt (ACK) fram mes and forr transmissioon in CFP.
To give a receiver sufficient
s time for receeived framee processing g, the standdard [27] prrescribes tw
wo
successive
s fr
frames transm mitted by a device to bbe separated d by at least an IFS. Thhe length off the IFS after
he frame traansmission depends on
th n the size off the frame. E.g. for a 2450 DSSSS the frame with a MA AC
protocol
p dataa unit (MPD DU) of less thant 19 bytees should bee followed byb a short IFFS (SIFS), which
w is equual
to
o 12 symbools [27]. Lonnger framess must be foollowed by a long IFS (LIFS) equual to 40 sym mbols. In thhe
case
c of acknnowledged frame
f transmmission, the IFS starts after
a the recception of thhe ACK framme [27]. Thhe
tiimings for ddata transferr in CAP and d CFP of a bbeacon-enab bled PAN and in a nonbbeacon-enab bled PAN arre
illlustrated inn Figure 2a–cc, respectiveely.

Figuree 2. (a) Tim ming for datta transfer iin CAP in th

he beacon-eenabled IEE
EE 802.15.44 PAN;
(b) Timming for daata transfer ini CFP in thhe beacon-eenabled IEE
EE 802.15.44 PAN; (c) Timing
T
for datta transfer inn the nonbeeacon-enablled IEEE 8002.15.4 PANN.

(a)

(b)

(c)
J.
J Sens. Actuuator Netw. 2013, 2 5994

IEEE 8022.15.4 [27] defines fourr possible tyypes of fram mes: beacon n, data, ACK K and MAC C commandds.
The
T generall format off frames prrescribed byy IEEE 802 2.15.4 for 2450 DSSSS PHY is illustrated in i
Figure
F 3a. E
Each frame starts with a synchronnization heaader (SHR) that is usedd for bit- and a byte-wisse
synchronizat
s tion. A PHY Y header (PH HR) is usedd to specify the
t length ofo the PHY ppayload (i.ee., MPDU). A
MAC
M headerr (MHR) stores the req quired inform mation abouut the framee type, formmat of differeent fields annd
other
o featurees and the sequence
s ideentifier of tthe frame. Additionally
A y, the MHR R contains thhe addressinng
data,
d which ddepend on thhe type of th he frame [277]. E.g., the ACK framees do not haave any addrress data. Thhe
leength of thee addressingg data field for
f a data fra rame can be between 4 and 20 bytees. The max ximum size of o
th
he MAC paayload (MAC C service daata unit—M MSDU) variees for differeent frame tyypes. For thee data framees,
th
he maximuum length of o MSDU is 116 bytees. The lasst two bytes contain tthe 16-bit ITU-T I cycllic
redundancy ccheck (CRC C) that is callculated overr the MHR and MAC payload
p fieldds [27].

Figuree 3. (a) Datta frame form

mat for IEE
EE 802.15.4 4; (b) Data and
a advertissing frame formats
f
for BL
LE; (c) Dataa frame formmat for Texaas Instrumeent’s SimpliciTI.

(a)

(b)

(c)
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 595

3.1.1. Maximum Single-Hop Throughput

In [6] we showed that the maximum throughput for the MAC payload (in kbit/s) in the
nonbeacon-enabled IEEE 802.15.4 2450 DSSS PAN for acknowledged and unacknowledged
single-hop data transfer can be calculated by Equations (3) and (4), respectively. In Equations (3), (4)
and onwards denotes the number of MAC payload bytes in a single frame, stands for the radio
signal propagation delay, T ( ) and T ( ) account for the time required to process the
n-byte data frame before the transmission and after the reception, respectively. The notation
( ; ) denotes the function that returns if ≥ and if < . For further details and
explanations about the frame format please refer to [6].
ℎ ℎ ( ,T ,T , )=
∙
∙ , <8
. ( ); ( ) .
(3)
∙
∙ , ≥ 8
. . ; ( ) . ; ( ) .

ℎ ℎ _ ( ,T ,T , )
∙8
, < 8
∙8
max T ( ) + 0.512 ; +T ( ) + + 0.544 (4)
= 250
∙8
, ≥ 8
∙8
max 0.64 ;T ( ) + 0.512ms; + T ( ) + + 0.544
250

In a beacon-enabled PAN, the maximum throughput depends on the number of time slots in the
CAP (i.e., ) and CFP and can be calculated by Equation (5) using Equations (6) and (7) for
acknowledged data transfer or Equations (8) and (9) for unacknowledged transfer. In Equations (6)
and (8) denotes the function that rounds x to the nearest integer greater than or equal to x.
∙
ℎ ℎ ( , , ,T , TTXprep , TRXproc , ) = ℎ ℎ ( , TTXprep , TRXproc , ) ∙ + (5)
ℎ ℎ ( , TTXprep , TRXproc , ) ∙

ℎ ℎ _ ( ,T ,T , )
∙8
=
∙8 (6)
max + 0.544 + max T ( ) + 0.832 ;T ( ) + + 0.544 + /0.32 ∙ 0.32
250

ℎ ℎ _ ( ,T ,T , )
∙8
, < 8
∙8
max + 0.736 +T ( ); T ( ) + + 0.544 + (7)
= 250
∙8
, ≥ 8
∙8
max + 0.544 + T ( ) + 0.192 ; 0.64 ,T + + 0.544 +
250

ℎ ℎ _ ( ,T ,T , )
∙8
= (8)
∙8
max T ( ) + 0.832 ;T ( )+ + 0.544 + /0.32 ∙ 0.32
250
∙
∙ , < 8
. , .
ℎ ℎ ,T ,T , = ∙ (9)
∙ , ≥ 8
. , . , .
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 596

3.1.2. Minimum Single-Hop Turnaround Time

By minimum turnaround time we understand the minimum time required for sending a data frame
from node A to node B and for getting a data frame from node B to node A in reply. If the payload of
the forward frame (i.e., a frame sent from A to B) is n bytes and the payload of reply frame is m bytes,
the minimum turnaround time for acknowledged and unacknowledged transmissions in the
nonbeacon-enabled IEEE 802.15.4 PAN is given by:
T _
, ,T ,T ,T , =2∙T +T ( )+T ( )+T = 2.656 +
( )∙ (10)
+2∙ T +T + +T

( + )∙8
T _
, ,T ,T ,T , = 1.92 +
250
+2∙ T +T + +T (11)
where, T denotes the time required for executing CSMA-CA, T ( ) signifies the time for
sending the data frame with an x-byte payload, T indicates the time for sending the ACK frame and
T denotes the time for processing the forward frame and generating the reply frame by the layers
above the ones standardized by IEEE 802.15.4 (e.g., the application layer).
For a nonbeacon-enabled PAN the minimum turnaround time for data transfer in CAP and CFP
differs significantly. Besides, in CFP the turnaround time is affected by the duration of the GTSs and
their direction (i.e., whether the data within a GTS are transferred from the coordinator to a device or
vice versa). During the CAP, the roundtrip time for acknowledged and unacknowledged scenarios is
given by the following equations:
( )∙
T , ,T ,T ,T , = 3.296 + +2∙ T +T + +T (12)
( + )∙8
T _
, ,T ,T ,T , = 2.56 +
250
+2∙ T +T + +T (13)

3.2. Bluetooth Low Energy

BLE was introduced as a part of Bluetooth Core Specification 4.0 in 2010 [3]. The major purpose of
developing BLE was to enable products to have lower current consumption, lower complexity and
lower cost than the ones possible with the classic Bluetooth [3].
Like the classic Bluetooth, a BLE transceiver includes two major components: a Controller and a
Host [3]. The Controller is the logical entity that is responsible for the PHY layer and the link layer
(LL) [3]. Although BLE Controllers inherit some features from the classic Bluetooth Controllers, both
types of Controllers are not compatible [17]. The Host implements the functionalities of the upper
layers. Those include (see Figure 4): L2CAP, GAP, ATT, GATT and SM. The logical link control and
adaptation protocol (L2CAP) defines the procedures for higher level multiplexing, packet
segmentation and transfer of quality of service (QoS) information [3]. The generic access profile (GAP)
specifies generic procedures related to the discovery of devices, link establishment and termination
management and procedures related to the use of the different security levels; it also includes the
common format requirements of the parameters accessible on the user interface level. The security
manager (SM) handles the management of pairing, authentication, bounding and encryption for BLE
communication. The attribute protocol (ATT) specifies the mechanisms for discovering, reading and
J.
J Sens. Actuuator Netw. 2013, 2 5997

writing
w attributes on a peer devicee, and the ggeneric attriibute profile (GATT) pprovides th
he frameworrk
for
f discovering servicess and for reaading and wwriting characteristic vaalues.

Figure 4. B
BLE stack architecture
a .

Like IEE EE 802.15.44 with 2450 0 DSSS, BL LE operates in the 2.4 4 GHz ISM M band. No onetheless, in
i
order
o to reduuce the trannsceivers’ coosts and thee amount off energy con nsumed, BL LE prescribes one to usse
binary
b frequuency moduulation with a 1 Mbit/s over-the-aiir data rate [3]. Unlike the classical Bluetoothh,
which
w uses 79 1-MHz--wide chann nels, BLE uuses 40 2-M MHz wide channels.
c T
Three of tho ose channells,
which
w are located beetween com mmonly useed wirelesss local areaa network channels, are a used foor
advertising
a aand service discovery and
a are callled advertising channels. The rem maining 37 data
d channeels
are
a used to transfer thee data. Thee transmissi on of data between BLE devicess is bound to t time uniits
known
k as addvertising annd connectiion events [33].
The adveertising evennts are used d to transmitt data on the advertisinng channelss. At the beg ginning of an
a
advertising
a event an addvertiser, i.e., the deviice that waants to transsmit the dat
ata, sends an n advertisinng
frame.
fr The format of thhe frame deepends on tthe advertissing event type. t The sttandard [3] defines fouur
possible
p typpes of adveertising eveents (see Taable 1) and d the corresponding ddata unit fo ormat for thhe
payload.
p Eaach advertissing event consists oof one or more m advertising PDU Us sent on the speciffic
advertising
a A advertising event is closed afteer one advertising PDU
cchannels. An U has been sent on eacch
used
u adverttising channnel or earlier, if deesired by the adverttiser. In caases of AD DV_IND or o
ADV_SCAN
A N_IND advvertising eveents, a devicce that listeens to an ad dvertising chhannel with h no intentioon
to
o connect too the adverttiser (referred as scannner) can req quest more data
d from thhe advertiseer by sendinng
th
he SCAN__REQ PDU on the channel wherre the adveertising channel PDU has been received r (seee
Figure
F 5a). For AVD__IND or AD DV_DIREC CT_IND eveents, a device (referredd to as an initiator)
i that
liistens to tthe channeel and dessires to exxchange th he data wiith the addvertiser caan send thhe
CONNECT_
C _REQ PDU U. In that caase, the advvertiser and the initiato
or will try too establish a connectioon
and
a start com mmunicatioon using datta channels..
J.
J Sens. Actuuator Netw. 2013, 2 5998

T
Table 1. Blu
uetooth Low
w Energy (B
BLE) adverttising eventts.
Eventt type Supported scannner Minimum advInterval,
a um payload 1,
Maximu
responses ms
m bytes
b
AVD_IND
A SCAN_REQ,
S , 20 31/31
3
CO
ONNECT_RE EQ
ADV_DIREC
A CT_IND CO
ONNECT_RE EQ 0
ADV_NONC
A CONN_IND - 10
00 31/-
ADV_SCAN
A N_IND SCAN_REQ
S Q 10
00 31/31
3
Notes: 1 LL payload, format: N/M,, N—maximuum payload off an advertising
g frame, M—
—maximum pay
yload of
a SCAN
N_RSP.

Figuree 5. (a) Tim

ming for data transfer oon BLE adv vertising ch
hannels usinng ADV_IN
ND and
ADV__SCAN_IND D; (b) Timming for ddata transfeer on BLE advertising ng channelss using
ADV__NONCONN N_IND; (c)) Timing forr data transffer on BLE data channe
nels.

(a)

(b)

(c)

For all unndirected addvertising ev

vents (i.e., A
AVD_IND, ADV_NON
A NCONN_IN
ND or ADV_
_SCAN_IND)
th
he time betwween two consecutive advertising events is defined as:
= + (144)
The values of advInnterval for different
d typpes of even
nts are depiccted in Tabble 1. The advDelay
a is a
pseudo-rand
p dom value raanging fromm 0 to 10 mss.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 599

An advertising event ends and connection events start if the advertiser receives and accepts the
connection request. Once a connection is established, the initiator becomes the master device and the
advertiser becomes the slave device. As illustrated in Figure 5c, at the beginning of each connection
event (referred to as the connection event anchor point) the used radio channel is changed following
the predefined sequence. The communication in each connection event is initiated by the master device,
which sends a frame to the slave. The master and the slave alternate sending the frames on the same
data channel while at least one of the devices has data to transmit or until the end of the current
connection event. In the case if either master or slave receives two consecutive frames with CRC errors,
the connection event is closed. The same happens if either of the devices is missing a radio packet.
According to the specification [3], the minimum time between frames on the same data channel should
exceed the IFS, which equals 150 . Note that unlike IEEE 802.15.4, which defines the IFS as the
period of time between two successive frames transmitted from a device, BLE considers IFS the time
interval between two consecutive frames on one channel.
The timing of connection events is determined using two parameters, namely the connection event
interval (connInterval), and the slave latency (connSlaveLatency). The connInterval is a multiple of
1.25 ms and has values ranging from 7.5 ms to 4.0 s. The connSlaveLatency defines the maximum
number of consecutive connection events in which a slave device is not required to listen to the master
(used to enable energy saving). The format for BLE frames is depicted in Figure 3b.

3.2.1. Maximum Throughput on Advertising Channels

As illustrated in Figures 5a, 5b and Table 1, BLE enables data transmission in ADV_IND,
ADV_SCAN_IND and ADV_NONCONN_IND advertising events. To include the data in the
advertising frames, the Host sends the Controller either the LE_Set_Advertising_Data_Command or
LE_Set_Scan_Response_Data_Command and specifies up to 31 data bytes to be included in the
advertising or scan response frames. Note that upper layers of BLE add some overhead and each frame
will carry less than 31 bytes of user-defined data. Nonetheless, to make the comparison with other
technologies fair, we will consider the LL payload when discussing BLE. Assuming that in each of the
advertising events the advertiser sends new data, the maximum throughput can be estimated as
∙8
ℎ ℎ ( )= , = 0. .31 (15)

where is defined from Equation (14) with advInterval value taken from Table 1.
Note that data transferring on the BLE advertising channels is not straightforward. The major
challenge is that according to the standard [3], the BLE Controller has no means to inform the Host
about the end of an advertising event so that the Host can update the advertising data. Therefore, to
enable such data transmission, the application layer needs to control the timing on its own and
periodically update the advertising data.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 600

3.2.2. Maximum Throughput on Data Channels

The transfer of data using connection events and data channels is illustrated in Figure 5c. The
throughput for master-slave unidirectional data transfer is given by
ℎ ℎ , ,T ,T ,
∙8
=
( + )∙8
, , = 0. .27 (16)
0.16 + 1000 + 2 ∙ + 2 ∙ max(0.15 ,T +T )

where n denotes the payload of each frame transferred from the master to the slave (i.e., forward
frame), m is the payload of the reply frame and 0.16 ms accounts for the time for transmitting the
frame headers.
Note that in real-life scenarios, strong interferences and losses can significantly decrease the BLE
throughput. The reason for this is that once a BLE transceiver misses a frame, communication is
suspended until the next connection event. Moreover, if a device receives two consecutive frames with
CRC errors, it will also suspend the transmission until the following event.
Clearly, if = 27, T =T = = = 0 (16) gives a maximum BLE LL throughput of
319.5 kbit/s and considering that the overhead introduced by the upper layers of the forward frame
protocols equals 7 bytes (see [17] and [18]), we obtain a maximum application layer throughput of
236.7 kbit/s. This corresponds to the analytic results reported in [17] and [18], which are obtained
using Equations (1–3) in [18] for a no packet loss scenario.

3.2.3. Minimum Turnaround Time

For the transfer on data channels, the minimum turnaround time is

T , ,T ,T ,T ,
( + )∙8
= 0.16 +
1000
+2∙ +T +T + max (0.15 ,T (17)
+T +T )

3.3. SimpliciTI

SimpliciTI is an open-source low-power proprietary radio protocol developed by TI for their

wireless products (both the IEEE 802.15.4-compatible and the proprietary transceivers) [29]. The
target of the protocol is to enable the fast and low-cost development of the low-power wireless
networking applications using TI’s products. Like the other proprietary protocols, SimpliciTI lacks
rigid specification and is provided as a software (SW) stack with a set of examples and
minimum documentation.
SimpliciTI is currently available for TI’s CC1100/2500 (i.e., 433/868/2,400 MHz radio transceivers
supporting OOK, FSK, GFSK, MSK modulation), CC2420 (i.e., 2,400 MHz radio transceiver compatible
with IEEE 802.15.4) and the chips originating from those. The typical over-the-air data rate for
SimpliciTI is 250 kbit/s, although users can easily change this as well as the other radio settings.
Unlike IEEE 802.15.4, SimpliciTI enables users to choose whether they would like to use CCA or not.
Moreover, SimpliciTI does not define IFS. The format of a SimpliciTI frame is depicted in Figure 3c.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 601

3.3.1. Maximum Throughput

The maximum throughput for SimpliciTI can be calculated by Equations (18) and (19) for the cases
in which one uses CCA and when CCA is not required. In Equations (18), (19) and onwards
T → and T → denote the time needed to switch between receive and transmit modes and vice
versa, T is the minimum time required to test the channel during CCA, DR stands for the used
over-the-air data rate and N and N are the lengths of preamble and synchroword in bytes,
respectively. For SimpliciTI the T → ,T → and T are the hardware parameters of the
transceiver, and DR, N and N are set by users for the majority of transceivers.

ℎ ℎ ,T ,T ,T → ,T → , T , DR, N ,N
∙8
= (18)
+ 11 + N +N ∙8
+ max T +T → +T → + T ,T
DR

∙8
ℎ ℎ ,T ,T , DR =
+ 11 + N +N ∙8
+ max T ,T
(19)
DR

3.3.2. Minimum Turnaround Time

The minimum turnaround time for SimpliciTI can be calculated by:

T , ,T ,T ,T , DR,
+ + 22 + 2 ∙ N +N ∙8 (20)
= +2 ∙ T +T + +T
DR

T , ,T ,T ,T ,T → ,T → , T , DR,
(21)
=T , ,T ,T ,T , DR, + 2 ∙ (T → +T → + T )

4. Experiment Methodology

In order to compare the analytic estimations of the maximum throughput and the minimum frame
turnaround time obtained in Section 3 with the performance characteristics of the real-life transmitters,
we have executed a set of experiments. In those, we have used the CC2430, CC2510 and CC2540
commercial Systems-on-Chips (SoCs) from TI (see Figure 6). The features of the transceivers are
summarized in Table 2. For our tests, we developed a special measurement application layer that
operated on top of MAC layers implemented by SimpliciTI (version 1.2) and TIMAC (stack version
1.0.1 implementing IEEE 802.15.4) software stacks and on top of the Host Controller Interface (HCI)
provided by TI-BLE software stack (version 1.2.1).

In our experiments we did the following:

• defined the maximum unidirectional LL data throughput for the HW and SW implementations
of the protocols;
• measured the throughput and the energy consumption of the transceivers;
• measured the minimum turnaround time;
• measured the resources required to implement the protocols.
J.
J Sens. Actuuator Netw. 2013, 2 6002

Figuree 6. Hardw ware modulees used forr the tests: the front row
r includees extensionn radio
boardss (from lefft to right) CC2540 (BLE), CC2430 (IE EEE 802.155.4) and CC2510
C
(SimplliciTI); the back row includes thee battery ex
xtender boaard (left) annd the SmaartRF04
develoopment boarrd (right).

Taable 2. Nom
minal parameeters and seettings of thee radio transceivers useed for the teests.
Paarameter Devicce
CCC2510 CC2431
C CC2540
Device
D type sysstem-on-chipp (radio system-on-chhip (radio system-on-cchip (radio
+ 8051
8 + 8051 + 8051
miicrocontrolleer) microcontroll
m ler) microcontrooller)
Microcontro
M oller specificcation Clock: 26 MHzz Clock:
C 32 MHHz Clock: 32 MHz
M
Flaash: 32 kbytee Flash:
F 128 kb
byte Flash:256 kbyte
RAAM: 4 kbyte RAM:
R 8 kbytte RAM:8 kby yte
Radio
R protoccol and stack Sim
mpliciTI EEE 802.15..4
IE BLE
version
v (TII SimpliciTI v1.2) TI-MAC v1.0.1)
(T (TI-BLE v1.2.1)
Frequency
F b
band 2.4
4 GHz 2.4
2 GHz 2.4 GHz
Modulation
M MS SK O-QPSK
O GFSK
Spectrum
S sp
preading Noone DSSS
D FHSS
Over-the-air
O r data rate, kbit/s
k 250/500 250
2 1000
TX
T power raange, dBm −5
55…1 −25.2…0.6
− −23…4
RX
R sensitivitty, dBm −9
90 (at 250 kb it/s −92
− −87 (at stan
ndard mode)
over-the-air daata rate)
Supply
S voltaage, V 2–
–3.6 2–3.6
2 2–3.6
Sleep
S currennt consumpttion, 0.5
5 0.5
0 0.9 1

Price
P (normaalized) 0.3
358 1 0.341
Noote: 1 timer acttive.

The meaasurements of the thrroughput annd turnarou und time were

w conduucted in th he laboratorry
environment
e t using the channel with
w minimuum interferrence for SimpliciTI aand IEEE 802.15.4 8 (thhe
absence
a of interferencce from other
o system
ms was co onfirmed prior
p to thhe measurements). Thhe
measuremen
m nts were exxecuted with h the transm
mitter placeed at a disttance of onne meter aw way from thhe
receiver whiile using thee maximum m possible raadio transm
mitting poweer. This ensuured that thhe strength of
o
th
he receivedd radio signnal was weell above thhe transceivver’s sensitiivity level (typically, the receiveed
signal
s strenggth indicatoor (RSSI) was
w well aboove −40 dBm and the packetp errorr rate was below
b 0.5%
%).
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 603

For the throughput estimation, in order to decrease possible environmental effects we measured the
total time required for the transmission of 60,000 data frames with a predefined payload size from the
transmitter to the receiver. The turnaround time was estimated by averaging the measurements of the
turnaround time for 1,000 data frames sent to and from the transmitter.
To measure the power consumption, we used the current-shunt method (refer to [30–32]). The
maximum error for these measurements is below 3 mW. The power consumption of the transceivers
supplied from the laboratory power source was measured. The supply voltage was set to 3 V. While
measuring the power consumption, all the peripherals on the used test boards were powered down-the
only active components were the radio transceiver and the microcontroller core running the stacks.
As shown in Table 2, all the used transceivers have a processing core based on the 8051
microcontroller. Therefore, by measuring the resources required to implement the protocols we were
able to get a sufficiently fair estimation of the protocols’ complexity. Note that the developed
application layers had the same functionality and were compiled using the same compiler with
identical optimization settings.

5. Discussion

The data presented in Table 3 reveal the amount of program and data memory required to
implement the stacks. As shown, the complete BLE stack requires almost four times more program
memory than TIMAC and more than eight times more resources than SimpliciTI. The implementation
of the PHY, LL and HCI BLE layers required 1.5 times more resources than the whole TIMAC stack
and 3.5 times more resources than SimpliciTI.

Table 3. Resources consumed by the stacks.

Resource Stack
SimpliciTI TI-MAC TI-BLE (Master) TI-BLE (Slave)
Program memory, bytes
16,024 36,573 55,786/137,719 2 50,913/117,050 2
Data memory 1, bytes
3,567 5,438 10,400/12,750 2 9,082/10,676 2
Note: 1 Cumulative for RAM and Flash; 2 For PHY, LL and test application layers on top of HCI only/ for the
complete stack including PHY, LL, HCI, L2CAP, GAP, ATT, GATT, GATT and GAP profiles.

The analytic estimations of the maximum possible throughput of the three technologies for the
different frame payloads are depicted in Figure 7. The results have been obtained using
Equations (3–9), (15), (16), (18), (19) assuming that T =T = = 0, T → = 32.6 ,
T → = 33.6 , T = 1000 , N = 4 bytes ,and N = 4 bytes for DR = 250 kbit/s
and N = 8 bytes for DR = 500 kbit/s (see [33]). The presented results reveal that although
BLE has the highest over-the-air data rate among all protocols, SimpliciTI using the DR = 500 kbit/s
can potentially provide a higher throughput. The major reasons for this are the following. First of all,
during unidirectional data transmission, SimpliciTI does not have to send any data from the receiver
node to the transmitter, whilst the BLE receiver always has to send a frame in reply to each received
frame to continue communication in an event (see Section 3.2). Second, unlike the two other protocols,
SimpliciTI does not define the IFS between transmitted frames. Third, the payload in SimpliciTI
J.
J Sens. Actuuator Netw. 2013, 2 6004

frames
fr is abbout two timmes larger th
han the onee possible in
n a BLE datta frame. Thhe presented d results alsso
reveal that thhe maximum m throughpput possible for this prootocol is 1.5
5 to 2 timess lower than
n that of BLLE
and
a SimplicciTI, even thhough the IEEE I 802.115.4 framess are capablle of carryiing the highhest payloadd.
The
T major rreasons for this are ass follows: thhe lower ov ver-the-air data rate coompared with
w the otheer
teechnologiess (see Tabble 2), th he mandatoory use of o CCA beforeb eachh transmission in thhe
nonbeacon-e
n enabled mode and in CAP
C of the bbeacon-enabbled mode, and the prootracted IFS S between thhe
subsequent
s frames. In addition, Figure
F 7 reeveals that the maxim mum possibble through hput for data
trransfer usinng BLE addvertising channels
c iss below 100 kbit/s for AVD_IND D events and
a is below w
2.4
2 kbit/s forr ADV_NO ONCONN_IIND and AD DV_SCAN_ _IND eventts. Note thatt the presennted value foor
BLE’s
B maxiimum throuughput is caalculated foor the LL payload and the actual throughputt for the useer
applications
a data is low
wer.

Figuree 7. LL fram
me payload’s effect onn the maxim
mum unidirecctional singgle-hop thro
oughput
for IEE
EE 802.15.44, BLE and SimpliciTII (analytic reesults).

The maxiimum throuughput obtaiined in the eexperiment using real transceivers

t s is depicted
d in Figure 8.
Comparing
C F
Figure 8 wiith Figure 7 one can noote that the maximum real-life thrroughput ob btained usinng
SimpliciTI
S iis about twoo times low
wer than thee theoreticallly expected
d one. The major reaso on for this is
th
he time reqquired for generating
g a frame, wwriting it to
o the transceiver’s mem mory and executing
e a
all
required serrvice operaations beforre the trannsmission (ee.g., frequeency syntheesizer calib bration). Thhe
maximum
m thhroughput, obtained with
w TIMAC C stack andd CC2430 transceiverss, reaches 145 kbit/s foor
unacknowle
u dged and 134 kbit/s fo
or acknowleedged data transmission
t n. This is appproximately 20%–25% %
lo
ower than the maxim mum throug ghput possiible for IEEE 802.15.4 accordinng to the analysis a (seee
Figure
F 7) annd the practtical experimments reporrted in [6]. The reason ns for this aare the max ximum MA AC
payload’s
p reestriction inn TIMAC too 102 bytes (refer to [334]), the delays in gennerating and d copying thhe
frames
fr to thhe transceiver’s buffeer, and the specifics of o the CCA A and IFS implementtation withiin
TIMAC
T (e.gg., the TIMA AC does no
ot support thhe executio
on of CCA during
d the IIFS). In [200] the authors
noted
n that thhe TI BLE stack restricts the num mber of dataa frames sen nt in a connnection even nt to four. In
I
our
o experim ments, we haave seen thaat although the stack lim mits the am
mount of datta transferreed in a single
J.
J Sens. Actuuator Netw. 2013, 2 6005

connection
c eevent, this is done baseed on the am
mount of daata rather thaan the numbber of framees. Thereforre,
for
f frames w with 24–27 byte paylo oads, only ffour framess are transm mitted from the masterr to the slavve
(and only thhree frames vice versa) in a conne ction event, regardlesss of the connnection inteerval. For thhe
frames
fr with 20–23 bytee payloads, five frame s are sent from
f the maaster to the slave and four
f from thhe
slave
s to the master in a single conn nection evennt. As we decreased
d th
he frame payyload, the number
n of thhe
frames
fr sent in a connection even nt increasedd. Nonethelless, we no oticed that once we decreased
d thhe
payload
p beloow some leevel (which depends onn the used connection
c interval), thhe data werre exchangeed
only
o in one out of eachh set of two o consecutivve connection events. We expect that this was caused by b
th
he erroneouus estimatioon of the datta transfer dduration by the stack’s LL, whichh caused thee master nodde
to
o miss the start of the next event. These are the two maajor reasons the measuured maxim mum BLE LL L
th
hroughput w was 122.6 kbit/s, which is 2.6 tiimes lower than the th heoretical m maximum. Nonethelesss,
comparing
c tthe results of our BL LE maximuum throughput measurrements to the resultss reported in i
previous
p woorks (e.g., the t reportedd in [17] 558.5 kbit/s for
f the app plication layyer’s throug ghput, whicch
corresponds
c to the throoughput of 79
7 kbit/s at the LL) on ne can see that
t in our eexperiment we obtaineed
slightly
s highher values for
fo the maxim mum througghput. The two major reasons
r for this are the use of loweer
payload
p valuues, which enabled us to increase the number of packetss sent in onne connectio on event, annd
th
he lower paacket proceessing delay ys due to exxclusion of the BLE sttack layers above the HCI. H For thhe
data
d transferr on BLE advertising
a channels th
the maximu um measureed throughpput was aro ound 8 kbitt/s
(advertising data are chhanged everry 31 ms) ffor AVD_IN ND and 2.2 2 kbit/s (datta are changged after 1111
ms)
m for ADV V_NONCO ONN_IND and ADV_S CAN_IND events, resp pectively.

Figuree 8. LL fram
me payload’s effect onn the maxim
mum unidirecctional singgle-hop thro
oughput
for IEE
EE 802.15.44, BLE and SimpliciTII (experimenntal results)).

The analyytic estimattions of the minimum tturnaround time

t that were calculatted from Eq
quations (100),
(11), (17), (220) and (21) for = 0 and T = 0 are presented in Figure 9. As one can
n see, BLE is
expected
e to have the lowest turn naround timme among the protocols under discussion. This is noot
surprising,
s aas BLE enabbles the recceiver to sennd a reply frame
f immeediately afteer the IFS, which
w equaals
150
1 . Sim
mpliciTI is expected
e to
o have a rouundtrip timee of 0.7 ms to 2.9 ms for the tran nsmissions at
J.
J Sens. Actuuator Netw. 2013, 2 6006

DR
D = 500 k kbit/s and 1.2 ms to 5 ms at = 250 kbit/s.The roundtrip tim
me for IEEE
E 802.15.4 is
estimated
e too range from m 1.92 ms to 9.34 ms for unackn nowledged and from 22.65 ms to 10.08 ms foor
acknowledg
a ed data trannsfer, depen
nding on thee payload size.

Figuree 9. LL fram
me payload’s effect onn the minimuum single-h
hop turnarouund time fo
or IEEE
802.155.4, BLE annd SimpliciT
TI (analytic results).

Figuree 10. LL frame

f paylo
oad’s effectt on the miinimum sin ngle-hop turrnaround tiime for
IEEE 8802.15.4, BLE
B and SimmpliciTI (exxperimental results).

Figure 100 depicts thee measuredd turnaroundd time for reeal-life tran
nsceivers. Thhe presented data reveal
th
hat the reall-life turnarround time for IEEE 8802.15.4 and SimpliciT TI transceivvers is arou
und 1.5-3 ms
m
higher
h than the analytiic expectations. Again,, we believ ve that this discrepancyy is caused d by the tim
me
required forr generatingg the data frrames and eexecuting alll the requirred service operations.. Meanwhille,
for
f BLE, innstead of thhe turnaroun nd time beeing less th
han one milllisecond, inn the tested d system we
w
J.
J Sens. Actuuator Netw. 2013, 2 6007

observed
o thee turnaround time to bee slightly abbove the coonnection in nterval durattion. The reeason for thhis
iss that the TII BLE stack delays transsmission of tthe reply un
ntil the start of
o the next cconnection event.
e

Figuree 11. Poweer consumpttion for the tested trannsceivers (seee Table 2) and protoccols for
transm
mitting a 19--byte frame (supply vo ltage 3 V, radio
r transm
mit power 0 dBm).

y consumpttion are preesented in Table 4 annd

The resuults revealinng the testeed transceivvers’ energy
depicted
d in F
Figure 11. The
T results reveal thatt the BLE trransceivers require muuch less time and energgy
for
f sending the data thhan the IEE EE 802.15.44 and SimplliciTI transcceivers. Thiis happens even thouggh
BLE
B transmmission incluudes both the transmisssion and reeception ph hases (see FFigures 5c anda 11). Thhe
results in T Table 4 for the energy y consumpttion for diffferent proto ocols for trransferring frames witth
19-byte
1 paylloads reveaal that the BLE
B radios rrequire two to seven tim mes less ennergy compaared with thhe
other
o tested protocols. This resultt correspondds quite weell to the reesults preseented in [200]. When thhe
energy
e conssumption off BLE is co ompared wiith the otheer protocolss using highher frame payloads
p (seee
Table
T 4), wee observe thhat even in this
t case thee amount off energy reqquired to traansfer the daata over BL
LE
iss two to three times low wer.

Table 4. R
Required tim
me and conssumed energgy for framee transmissiion/receptioon for the trransceivers.
Staack Time 1, med energy 1,
Consum y efficiency 1,
Energy
ms /byte
Transmisssion (for BLE
E - also recepttion) of a sing
gle frame with
h a 19-byte LL
L payload:
2
TIMAC,
T acknnowledged 2.50 190 10.0
TIMAC,
T unaccknowledged 1.66 125 6.6
3
BLE,
B ADV_IN ND 0.73 42 2.2
BLE,
B ADV_N NONCONN_IIND 0.50 31 1.6
4
BLE
B (master node), data frame
f transm
mission 0.66 39 2.1
5
BLE
B (master node), data frame
f reception 0.66 36 1.9
SimpliciTI,
S CCA, 250 kbitt/s 2.46 165 8.7
SimpliciTI,
S noo CCA, 250 kbit/s
k 2.21 148 7.8
SimpliciTI,
S CCA, 500 kbitt/s 1.76 105 5.5
SimpliciTI,
S noo CCA, 500 kbit/s
k 1.60 96 5.1
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 608

Table 4. Cont.
Stack Time 1, Consumed energy 1, Energy efficiency 1,
ms /byte
Transmission (for BLE - also reception) of a single frame with other payloads:
TIMAC, acknowledged 2 , 100-byte payload 5.07 406 4.1
TIMAC, unacknowledged, 100-byte payload 4.30 347 3.5
BLE, ADV_IND 3, 31-byte payload 0.80 50 1.6
BLE, ADV_NONCONN_IND, 31-byte payload 0.60 39 1.3
4
BLE (master node), 27-byte data frame transmission 0.72 44 1.6
5
BLE (master node), 27-byte data frame reception 0.72 40 1.5
SimpliciTI, 250 kbit/s, CCA, 50-byte payload 3.5 246 4.9
SimpliciTI, 250 kbit/s, no CCA, 50-byte payload 3.16 227 4.5
SimpliciTI, 500 kbit/s, CCA, 50-byte payload 2.23 148 3.0
SimpliciTI, 500 kbit/s, no CCA, 50-byte payload 2.09 141 2.8
1 2
Note: Energy and time for pre-processing and post-processing (see [19]) not included; Reception of an
acknowledgement included; Energy and time for checking the channel for incoming SCAN_REQ included; 4 Energy and
3

5
time for receiving the reply frame with no payload included; Energy and time for sending the starting frame at the
beginning of a connection event with no payload included (see Figure 5c).

6. Conclusions

Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) is rather new protocol, and in this study we deepened the
understanding of both the theoretical capabilities of the protocol itself and the capabilities of the
currently available transceivers to implement the protocol. In the paper, we also compared BLE with
two other protocols-SimpliciTI, which is a proprietary protocol developed by Texas Instruments, and
IEEE 802.15.4, which is the de-facto communication standard in the WSNs.
The results reveal that BLE can potentially support the maximum LL data throughput of around
320 kbit/s. This is about 70% higher than the maximum throughput possible for IEEE 802.15.4 with
2450 DSSS PHY (i.e., 190 kbit/s). Nonetheless, the results of the measurements that were executed
using the real BLE transceivers revealed that the current version of the used BLE stack has several
limitations, which prevented us from obtaining a throughput higher than 123 kbit/s. This is about 20%
lower than the throughput we have obtained with the IEEE 802.15.4 transceivers and 40% lower than
the maximum throughput that was measured for SimpliciTI transceivers. The maximum throughput
that we managed to obtain on BLE advertising channels was below 10 kbit/s. The absence of the
mechanism for the BLE Controller to inform the Host about the start/end of an advertising event
complicates the implementation of the data transfer on BLE advertising channels.
The presented analytic results show that the BLE technology is capable of providing a frame
turnaround time of less than one millisecond. The analytic estimations of the minimum turnaround
times for SimpliciTI and IEEE 802.15.4 range from 0.7 ms to 5 ms and from 2.7 ms to 10 ms,
respectively. The turnaround time that we have measured using SimpliciTI and the IEEE 802.15.4
transceivers appeared to be 1.5–3 ms higher than the analytic expectations. The major reason for this
discrepancy is the time required to generate the data frames and to execute the other service operations.
This time depends exclusively on the features of the hardware and software that implement the
protocol and was not accounted for during the analysis. The tested BLE transceivers delayed the
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 609

transmission of the reply data frame until the start of the next connection event. Due to this feature of
the BLE stack, the minimum frame turnaround time that we observed during our experiments was
around 7.6 ms.
The conducted experiments have shown that the tested BLE transceiver required two to seven times
less energy to transfer data than the SimpliciTI and the IEEE 802.15.4 transceivers. This result
corresponds to the results presented in [20].
Table 2 reveals that the price of the BLE transceiver chip is slightly lower than the price of the
SimpliciTI chip and about three times lower than the cost of the IEEE 802.15.4 transceiver.
Additionally, the presented results have shown that the BLE software stack requires significantly more
resources than SimpliciTI or IEEE 802.15.4. The implementation of the complete BLE stack requires
almost four times more program memory than was used by TIMAC (implementing IEEE 802.15.4)
and more than eight times more than was necessary for SimpliciTI.
One of the factors that can somewhat limit the applicability of BLE is the restrictions concerning
the BLE network’s topology. The current version of the standard requires a single-hop star network
topology and states that a BLE device ‘is only permitted to belong to one piconet at a time’ [3].
Although this requirement does not forbid the establishment of the multihop links directly, it makes the
implementation of multihopping for BLE more challenging. Indeed, to implement a multihop data
transmission, a node will have to periodically switch the piconets to relay the data between those.
The other important issue is the interoperability between the BLE and the other telecommunication
systems, many of which are based on the Internet Protocol (IP). To address this issue, the authors
of [35] specified a mechanism enabling IPv6 transmission over BLE links. In [36] the details of the
implementation and evaluation of the IPv6 packets transmission over BLE are reported. Although the
mechanism suggested in [35] enables BLE devices to transfer the IPv6 packets, it also requires the
devices to support packet fragmentation at L2CAP (which is optional for BLE [3]) and to have a buffer
capable of storing at least a datagram of at least 1280 bytes [37]. It is also not clear how energy
efficient it is to use the IPv6 over BLE links and which applications require this capability, especially
considering the restrictions regarding the topology of the BLE networks.
Nonetheless, BLE has two significant advantages: its interoperability with other devices and its low
cost. One of the factors that impeded the spreading of WSAN-based applications is their absence of
common communication interfaces enabling other devices (e.g., laptops, smartphones, palmtop
computers and mobile devices) to communicate directly with WSANs. The Bluetooth Special Interest
Group (SIG) is addressing this challenge by suggesting dual-mode transceivers, i.e., radio modules that
can support both the classic Bluetooth and BLE. The first consumer devices (i.e., smart phones, tablet
computers and notebooks) encapsulating such transceivers have already appeared on the market.
Moreover, in this paper we have shown that the BLE transceivers are lower in price than transceivers
implementing the other evaluated technologies. This enables one to reduce the cost of the applications
developed using this technology.
To sum up, the results presented in this paper reveal that BLE already provides an inexpensive and
power-efficient solution for wireless communication. Nonetheless, the tested BLE radio transceiver
and stack still have many limitations that restrict the throughput and communication latency one can
achieve with them. The other serious limitation of the BLE technology is the restrictions regarding its
network topology.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 610

Based on the analytic and measurement evaluation results, we expect that the major application area
for BLE in the coming years will be energy efficient human-oriented applications that require either
peer-to-peer or single-hop star topologies. These applications may include health and fitness,
entertainment, smart home/office, personal security and proximity detection, and data and location
advertisement. Although there is the mechanism enabling the IPv6 to be transferred over BLE links,
we hardly think that this capability will be widely used in real-life applications in the immediate future.
Meanwhile, we suppose that for non-human oriented applications and for applications requiring wide
coverage areas (e.g., the wildlife, nature and environment monitoring, industrial monitoring and
control, building and process automation, security, logistics) other communication protocols and
standards will be predominantly used, such as IEEE 802.15.4 and its numerous extensions, e.g.
ZigBee [21], WirelessHART [38], ISA100.11a [39] or 6LoWPAN [40]. Therefore, we suppose that
BLE will have a wide application area, specifically for WSAN applications, although this technology
will hardly dominate the market by 2015 as the authors in [4] assumed.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Silicon Laboratories Inc. The evolution of wireless sensor networks Available online:
http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/evolution-of-wireless-sensor-
networks.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2013).
2. Hatler, M. Industrial wireless sensor networks: Trends and developments. Available online:
http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&Co
ntentID=90824 (accessed on 24 June 2013).
3. Bluetooth SIG. Bluetooth Specification Version 4; The Bluetooth Special Interest Group: Kirkland,
WA, USA, 2010.
4. WTRS Wireless Sensor Network Technology Trends Report; WT062510CNTS; West Technologies
Research Solutions: Mountain View, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 1–267.
5. Sun, T.; Chen, L.J.; Han, C.C.; Yang, G.; Gerla, M. Measuring Effective Capacity of IEEE
802.15.4 Beaconless Mode. In Proceedings of IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking
Conference (WCNC’06), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 3–6 April 2006; pp. 493–498.
6. Mikhaylov, K.; Tervonen, J. Analysis and evaluation of the maximum throughput for data
streaming over IEEE 802.15.4 wireless networks. J. High Speed Netw. in press.
7. Latré, B.; Mil, P.D.; Moerman, I.; Dhoedt, B.; Demeester, P.; Dierdonck, N.V. Throughput and
Delay Analysis of Unslotted IEEE 802.15.4. J. Netw. 2006, 1, 20–28.
8. Choi, J.S.; Zhou, M. Performance Analysis of ZigBee-Based Body Sensor Networks. In
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems Man and Cybernetics (SMC’10),
Istanbul, Turkey, 10–13 October 2010; pp. 2427–2433.
9. Liang, X.; Balasingham, I. Performance Analysis of the IEEE 802.15.4 Based ECG Monitoring
Network. In Proceedings of IASTED Wireless and Optical Communications Conference
(WOC’07); Montreal, QC, Canada, 30 May–1 June 2007; pp. 99–104.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 611

10. Zhang, Y.; Atac, A.; Liao, L.; Heinen, S. A Low-Power High-Efficiency Demodulator in
Bluetooth Low Energy Receiver. In Proceedings of 8th Conference on Ph.D. Research in
Microelectronics and Electronics (PRIME’12), Aachen, Germany, 12–15 June 2012; pp. 1–4.
11. Masuch, J.; Delgado-Restituto, M. A 190-microWatt Zero-IF GFSK Demodulator with a 4-b
Phase-Domain ADC. IEEE J. Solid-St. Circ. 2012, 47, 2796–2806.
12. Wong, A.; Dawkins, M.; Devita, G.; Kasparidis, N.; Katsiamis, A.; King, O.; Lauria, F.; Schiff, J.;
Burdett, A. A 1 V 5 m A Multimode IEEE 802.15.6 / Bluetooth Low-Energy WBAN Transceiver
for Biotelemetry Applications. In Proceedings of IEEE International Solid-State Circuits
Conference (ISSCC’12), San Francisco, CA, USA, 19–23 February 2012; pp. 300–302.
13. Yu, B.; Xu, L.; Li, Y. Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) Based Mobile Electrocardiogram Monitoring
System. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information and Automation (ICIA’12),
Shenyang, China, 6–8 June 2012; pp. 763–767.
14. Ali, M.; Albasha, L.; Al-Nashash, H. A Bluetooth Low Energy Implantable Glucose Monitoring
System. In Proceedings of 8th European Radar Conference (EuRAD’11), Manchester, UK, 12–14
October 2011; pp. 377–380.
15. Jara, A.J.; Fernandez, D.; Lopez, P.; Zamora, M.A.; Ubeda, B.; Skarmeta, A.G. Evaluation of
Bluetooth Low Energy Capabilities for Continuous Data Transmission from a Wearable
Electrocardiogram. In Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Innovative Mobile and
Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing (IMIS’12), Palermo, Italy, 4–6 July 2012; pp. 912–917.
16. Liu, J.; Chen, C.; Ma, Y. Modeling Neighbor Discovery in Bluetooth Low Energy Networks.
IEEE Commun. Lett. 2012, 16, 1439–1441.
17. Gomez, C.; Oller, J.; Paradells, J. Overview and Evaluation of Bluetooth Low Energy: An
Emerging Low-power Wireless Technology. Sensors 2012, 12, 11734–11753.
18. Gomez, C.; Demirkol, I.; Paradells, J. Modeling the Maximum Throughput of Bluetooth Low
Energy in an Error-Prone Link. IEEE Commun. Lett. 2011, 15, 1187–1189.
19. Kamath, S.; Lindh, J. Measuring Bluetooth® Low Energy Power Consumption; AN092S
(WRA347a); Texas Instruments, Inc.: Dallas, TX, USA, 2012; pp. 1–24.
20. Siekkinen, M.; Hiienkari, M.; Nurminen, J.K.; Nieminen, J. How Low Energy is Bluetooth Low
Energy? Comparative Measurements with ZigBee / 802.15.4. In Proceedings of IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference Workshops (WCNCW’12), Paris, France, 1 April
2012; pp. 232–237.
21. ZigBee Specification; 053474r17; ZigBee Standards Organization: San Ramon, CA, USA, 2008;
pp. 1–576.
22. Fujii, C.; Seah, W.K.-G. Multi-Tier Probabilistic polling in Wireless Sensor Networks Powered by
Energy Harvesting. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor
Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP’11), Adelaide, SA, USA, 6–9 December 2011; pp.
383–388.
23. Skrzypczak, L.; Grimaldi, D.; Rak, R. Basic Characteristics of ZigBee and Simpliciti Modules to
Use in Measurement Systems. In Proceedings of 19th IMEKO World Congress, Lisbon, Portugal,
6–11 September 2009; pp. 1456–1460.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 612

24. Bertarelli, F. Energy Cluster Aggregation in a WSN Based on EZ430-RF2500 T Nodes and
SimpliciTI Protocol. In Proceedings of 4th Education and Research Conference (EDERC’10),
Nice, France, 1–2 December 2010; pp. 145–149.
25. IEEE 802 Working Group. IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks—Part 15.4:
Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for
Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs); IEEE Std 802.15.4-2003; 2003;
Volume 4, pp. 1–670.
26. IEEE 802 Working Group. IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks—Part 15.4:
Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low Rate
Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs); IEEE Std 802.15.4-2006; 2006; pp. 1–320.
27. IEEE 802 Working Group. IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks—Part 15.4:
Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs); IEEE Std 802.15.4-2011; 2011;
pp. 1–314.
28. Aaberge, T. Low Complexity Antenna Diversity for IEEE 802.15.4 2.4 GHz PHY. M.Sc. Thesis,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, June 2009.
29. Texas Instruments SimpliciTITM - RF Made Easy. Available online: http://www.ti.com/simpliciti/
(accessed on 14 June 2013).
30. Nakutis, Z. Embedded Systems Power Consumption Measurement Methods Overview.
MATAVIMAI 2009, 2, 29–35.
31. Mikhaylov, K.; Tervonen, J. Optimization of Microcontroller Hardware Parameters for Wireless
Sensor Nnetwork Node Power Consumption and Lifetime Improvement. In Proceedings of 2nd
International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems (ICUMT’10),
Moscow, Russia, 18–20 October 2010; pp. 1150–1156.
32. Mikhaylov, K.; Tervonen, J. Evaluation of Power Efficiency for Digital Serial Interfaces of
Microcontrollers. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility
and Security (NTMS), Istanbul, Turkey, 7–10 May 2012; pp. 1–5.
33. Texas Instruments. Low-Power SoC (System-on-Chip) with MCU, Memory, 2.4 GHz RF
Transceiver, and USB Controller; 2013; p. 236.
34. Texas Instruments. 802.15.4 MAC Application Programming Interface; SWRA192; 2009; p. 58.
35. Isomaki, M.; Nieminen, J.; Gomez, C.; Shelby, Z.; Savolainen, T.; Patil, B. Transmission of
IPv6 Packets over BLUETOOTH Low Energy. Available online: http://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle-12#section-2.4 (accessed on 1 August 2013).
36. Wang, H.; Xi, M.; Liu, J.; Chen, C. Transmitting IPv6 Packets over Bluetooth Low Energy Based
on BlueZ. In Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Advanced Communication
Technology (ICACT’13), PyeongChang, Korea, 27–30 January 2013; pp. 72–77.
37. Deering, S.E.; Hinden, R. Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. Available online:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460 (accessed on 1 August 2013).
38. WirelessHART; IEC 62591:2010(E); International Electrotechnical Comission: Austin, TX, USA,
2010.
39. Wireless Systems for Industrial Automation: Process Control and Related Applications;
ANSI/ISA-100.11a-2011; International Society of Automation: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA,
2011; pp. 1–792.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2 613

40. Kushalnagar, N.; Montenegro, G.; Culler, D.E.; Hui, J.W. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
IEEE 802.15.4 Networks. Available online: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4944 (accessed on 2
August 2013).

© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).