Table 1.
Summary of various BLE Mesh Protocols.
| Ref. | –Protocol –Homogeneous BLE or Heterogeneous |
-Connection-Oriented (C) /Routing (R) -Flooding (F)/(R) |
Test Bed (T)/ Simulation (S) |
PDR | End to End Delay | Power Consumption |
Nodes Other Measurements (OM) Throughput |
Pros and Cons |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [10] | –CbODRP –Homogeneous BLE |
C/R-Reactive | S | × | -Route discovery delay 40–100 ms with 50–90 nodes |
Approx 250–500 mA with 50–90 nodes |
50 to 90 Nodes OM-Route Req Messages 0–20 with number of nodes 50–90 -Control Paket Overhead 12–88 with Route Discovery interval 1–10 s |
Pros-Good contribution towards hybrid mesh protocols Cons-No new pure mesh protocol proposed -Lack of Hardware Implementation |
| [11] | –MRT-BLE –Homogeneous BLE Network (Static Nodes) (Bounded Packet Delays in Mesh Network) |
C (Static Routing Configure Offline to get bounded delays) |
T-(BLE) X-NUCLEO-IDB05A1 |
-Single Hop (100%) -Two Hops (Approx 100%) -Three Hops (96%) -Four Hops (97%) |
-Single Hop (120 ms) -Two Hops (390 ms) -Three Hops (810 ms) -Four Hops (1050 ms) -Five Hops (1400 ms) |
× | 8 Nodes |
Pros-Positive contribution (hybrid mesh protocols) Cons-Require Dynamıc Configuration Mechanism for free movement of nodes -Missing Dynamic topology management mechanism -Need Realtime routing for efficiency |
| [41] | –BLE-Tree Network –Homogeneous BLE |
C and R (Reactive) | T Raspberry Pi 3 Model B (BLE 4.1) S |
100% (for 2 p/s) 97.5% (for 5 p/s) 82% (for 10 p/s) |
Round-Trip Time: For 1 Hop = 100 ms 2 Hops = 200 ms 3 Hops = 250 ms 4 Hops = 340 ms 5 Hops=360 ms 6 Hops=530 ms |
× | 40 Nodes |
Pros-Efficient Breadth First Search algorithm Cons-No detailed analysis (other tree-based protocols)-Security (Authentication methods not discussed) |
| [46] | –FruityMesh –Homogeneous BLE |
C (FruityMesh (FM)) /R-Reactive |
T-Nordic Thingy: 52 IOT sensor kit -nRF52DK -nRF6707 |
× | × | Note: Connection Interval (CI) (7.5–400 ms) (a) 0.65–0.1 mA (Adv Interval 100 ms with CI) (b) 0.6–0.03 mA (Adv Interval 600 ms with CI) (c) Network Life 10–250 days with CI |
1 to 3 Nodes OM with CI from 7.5–400 ms and advertising interval (100 and 600) the current drain is 0–0.65 mA Throughput Approx from 8–0.5 kB/s for CI 5–400 ms and max 3 packets/interval -with CI > 400 ms is 150 b/s |
Pros-Good contribution related to power consumption and current drainage Cons-Need to work on more number of nodes and further analysis of performance measurements |
| [49] | –DC-BMN –Homogeneous BLE |
C | S-Matlab | × | × | × | 100 Nodes OM For N Slot 10 |
Pros-Analystic Model for node isolation probability Cons-No Performance Measurement-No Testbed |
| [50] | –FruityMesh and Trickle –Homogeneous BLE |
C (FM) /R-Reactive F-(Trickle (TR)) |
T-nRF52 (BLE 5) | FM: 40% (10 p/s) TR: 38%(10 p/s) |
FM: Approx 3.8 s TR: 0.35 s |
FM: 9.4 mW TR: 28.5 mW |
7 Nodes |
Pros-Author performed good comparison between C and F networks Cons-No new algorithm or method proposed |
| [51] | –FruityMesh and Trickle –Homogeneous BLE |
C (FM)/ R-Reactive F-TR |
T-nRF52 (BLE 5) -Five Hardkernel Odroid-C2 -Netgear GS108T 8-port switch |
-FM: 100%, 90%, 40% with 1, 5, 10 p/s resp -TR: 100%, 80%, 38% with 1, 5, 10 p/s resp |
-FM: 0.3, 3.7, 3.9 s with 1, 5, 10 p/s resp -TR: 0.4, 0.3, 0.3 s with 1, 5, 10 p/s |
FM: 9 mW TR: 28 mW |
37 Nodes |
Pros-Good implementation of available hybrid mesh protocols |
| [52] | –BLE Mesh –Homogeneous BLE |
C/R-Reactive | T- nRF52 (BLE 5) |
High | Low | × | 12 Nodes |
Pros-Used network inference for determination of node settings and design choices Cons-Require more experimentation |
| [53] | –K2 Pruning Greedy Connect and Dominator –Homogeneous BLE |
F-(Greedy Connect (GC) K2 Pruning (KP) Dominator(D)) |
S-Matlab | -Area (330 × 330 msq) K2: Approx 80%–8% with packets 5–200 p/s GC:65%–8% with packets 5–200 p/s |
× | × | 1000 Nodes |
Pros-Comparative study of various flooding techniques Cons-No proposed protocol |
| [54] | –D-AOMDV –Homogeneous BLE |
F | S-Matlab | Approx 75%–88% with number of nodes 10–40 |
× | × | 40 Nodes |
Pros-Good Simulation Results with 40 Nodes Cons-Require Analysis of more performance parameters |
| [55] | –RT-BLE –Homogeneous BLE (Static Nodes) (Bounded Packet Delays in Mesh Network) |
C (Static Routing Configure Offline to get bounded delays) |
T-(BLE) X-NUCLEO-IDB05A1 |
× | 20 ms | × | 4 Nodes |
Pros-Positive contribution (hybrid mesh protocols) Cons-Require Dynamıc Configuration Mechanism for free movement of nodes -Require Dynamic topology management mechanism -Need Realtime routing for efficiency |
| [59] | –BLE-PLC –Heterogenous |
C/R-Reactive | T-nRF52832 (BLE 5) -PLC Modem IEEE 1901 -Wiznet 5550 |
-BLE Node Distance 0.6 m, transmit power −4 to 4 dBm a. 93%–97.5% (without wifi interference) b. 91%–96.5% (with wifi) |
-BLE Node Distance 0.6 m, transmit power (−4 to 4 dBm) a. 8.2–6.3 ms (without wifi) b. 8.4–6.4 ms (with wifi) |
× | 12 Nodes |
Pros-Good efficient smart cargo Cons-Tested only for PDR and Delay |
| [61] | –OperaBLE –Heterogenous (BLE, LoRaWAN, BAN) (Mobile Nodes) |
C/R-Reactive F | T-Arduino UNO -BLE112 and CSRmesh -Light Blue Bean -Raspberry Pi 2 B -LoRaWAN etc |
BLE Mesh -Supervisor Request/Response 100% and 92% -Supervisor Taps (96%) -Movements Tx: (Approx 96%) OperaBLE -Supervisor Taps (92%) -OperaBLE movement (Approx 90%) |
BLE Mesh -Requests (Average Delay 0.347 s) -Taps (1.407 s) -Movement (Average time per packet 0.290s) |
OperaBLE -Program Running 14 mA -Sleep Mode 2 mA |
Nodes Not Mentioned OM Security at work -Heart rate measure (Error rate while fatigued 6.5% relaxed 1.05% working, 2.9%) |
Pros-Good Heterogenous network for the industry Cons-Require development of coginitive systems for intelligent support enhancement -ML techniques can be applied for movements -Security can be improved |