Bluetooth AoA Direction Finding Study Finds Limitations

While we wait for products based on Bluetooth 5.1 direction finding to reach the market, researchers in the UK and Italy have performed a study Dead on Arrival: An Empirical Study of The Bluetooth 5.1 Positioning System.

The paper tests the market readiness of the Bluetooth 5.1 direction finding by experimentally evaluating the performance of the AoA mechanism. The authors took Software-Defined Radios(SDR) manufactured by Ettus Research and emulated Bluetooth AoA data in order to assess the potential accuracy and security.

The results show that accurate angular detection is limited to a restricted range:

“Observe that the error is below 85 cm for more than 95% of the positions. However, this is far from meeting the centimetre level accuracy expected by IoT applications, since the absolute positioning error is <10 cm only in 15% of cases. Although offering sub-meter accuracy, is far from achieving centimetre-level precision.”

It was found that a malicious device can easily alter the truthfulness of the measured AoA data by tampering with the packet structure because the Bluetooth 5.1 standard doesn’t enforce any security provisions. The researchers suggest an improvement to the standard, by changing the receiver, so that instead of using one main antenna and switching to the other only for measuring the phase-delay, it keeps the other antenna active for the next packet to be received.

Nordic Wireless Quarter Magazine Available

Nordic, the manufacturer of the System on a Chip (SoC) in many beacons, has the latest issue of Wireless Quarter Magazine. It showcases the many uses of Nordic SoCs.

News from the world of beacons includes:

  • Quuppa partnership – this might accelerate Bluetooth direction finding solutions
  • Beacons helping visually impaired
  • Beacons for robot perception and interaction
  • Beacons in restaurants

Bluetooth AoA Direction Finding Antenna Design

We have previously mentioned that antenna design is a complex area that will slow the rollout of Bluetooth AoA direction finding solutions. What are the issues?

Theodoros Prokic of the KTH Royal Institute of Technology has a new paper on the Antenna Design for Angle of Arrival Measurement in Access Control Applications (pdf) that explores the antennas needed for two sides of an in an inside-outside scenario.

The paper provides an analysis of the challenges the antenna designer faces when creating an AoA solution. Issues include orientation and polarization, matching, coupling, reflections, phase center, and physical size. Designing and creating antennas can easily lead to inconsistent results due to the affects of hardware, cables and other testing equipment in the vicinity.

New Interview with Quuppa

Mister Beacon has a new interview with Fabio Belloni of Quuppa. It clarifies that while Quuppa uses direction finding techniques and contributed to the Bluetooth 5.1 direction finding standard, their solution is based on Bluetooth 4 and is a proprietary, not standards based solution. Their solution will continue to be provided alongside their new products based on Bluetooth 5.1.

The interview mentions how the Bluetooth 5.1 direction finding standard might need to evolve to provide less ‘chatty’, shorter communication in order to be suitable for all usecases, particularly those that are battery powered or need to have very large numbers of assets being tracked.

It’s also mentioned that the Bluetooth direction finding standard doesn’t cover tools needed to setup and control direction finding systems. It also doesn’t specify antenna design that’s a complex area.

As we have also experienced, there’s mention how some Ultra Wideband (UWB) vendors and ISVs are moving to Bluetooth for reduced costs, reduced power requirements and compatibility with other devices (tablets, phones and single board computers) that also use Bluetooth LE.

There’s also a recent article by Quuppa on Quuppa’s Role Regarding the New Bluetooth SIG Direction Finding Feature. It explains how AoD will require work by software operating system providers, hardware ODMs, silicon vendors and direction finding product providers before products appear in the market.

Location Beacons

We sometimes get asked for location beacons or which beacons are best for determining location. All beacons can be used for locating. While there are physical aspects such as battery size/life and waterproofing that make some beacons more suitable for some scenarios, locating capability is determined more by the software used rather than the beacons themselves.

Our article on Determining Location Using Bluetooth Beacons gives an overview on locating while the article on Using Beacons, iBeacons for Real-time Locating Systems (RTLS) explains how RTLS work. If you wish to create your own locating software we have a large number of posts on RSSI.

If you have been attracted to Bluetooth by recent announcements on Bluetooth direction finding, be aware that no ready-made hardware or software solutions exist yet. It will take a while, perhaps years, before silicon vendors support Bluetooth 5.1 direction finding, silicon vendors create SDKs and hardware manufacturers create hardware.

New Bluetooth Direction Finding Feature

A new direction finding feature has been released for Bluetooth 5.1 (pdf). Using more than one antenna, as used by Quuppa, allows for direction finding.

The paper on Enhancing Bluetooth Location Services with Direction Finding explains how location services currently use RSSI to estimate the distance. Direction finding introduces more advanced Angle of arrival (AoA) and angle of departure (AoD) techniques into Bluetooth 5.

“Should smartphone vendors choose to include Bluetooth direction finding with AoA support in their products, item finding solutions could be enhanced to provide directional information.”

As with the move from Bluetooth 4 to Bluetooth 5 it’s going to be while before we see (non Quuppa) products with direction finding. This feature requires specific hardware and software. Before that, it needs SDKs from the SoC vendors. Existing smartphones, beacons and gateways won’t be able to be upgraded.

Read about Using Beacons, iBeacons for Real-time Locating Systems (RTLS)

iBeacon Microlocation Accuracy

Customers often ask us the accuracy when locating beacons. In order to get the answer, its necessary to understand different ways of locating and the tradeoffs that are needed to get the different levels of accuracy.

There are two types of locating, received signal strength (RSSI) based and angle of arrival direction finding (AoA).

Locating using RSSI

There are two main scenarios. The first is a where the detector, usually a phone or gateway, is at a known location and the beacon moves. The second is where the beacons are fixed and the detector moves. Either way, the detector receives a unique beacon id and the receiving electronic circuitry provides the strength of the received signal.

The value of the RSSI can be used to infer the distance from the detector to the beacon. The main problem with RSSI is that it varies too much, over time, to be used to accurately calculate distance. The direction also isn’t known when there’s only one beacon and one detector. The varying RSSI, even when nothing is moving, is caused by the Bluetooth radio signals that are reflected, deflected by physical obstacles and interfered with by other devices using similar radio frequencies. Physical factors such as the room, the beacon not uniformly emitting across a range of 360 degrees, walls, other items or even people can affect the received signal strength. How the user holds a detecting phone can affect the effectiveness of the antenna which in turn affects the signal strength.

The varying RSSI can be smoothed by averaging or signal processing, such as Kalman filtering, to process multiple RSSI values over time. The direction not being known can be solved by using trilateration where three gateways (or beacons depending on the above mentioned scenario) are used to determine the distance from three directions and hence determine the 2D location.

Trilateration

The aforementioned physical factors that affect RSSI can be reduced by measuring the actual RSSI at specific locations and hence calibrating the system.

The change of RSSI with distance is greater when the beacon is near the detector. At the outer reaches of the beacon signal, the RSSI varies very little with distance and it’s difficult to know whether the variance is due to a change of distance or radio noise. Hence for systems that use signal processing, trilateration and calibration tend to achieve accuracies of about 1.5m within a shorter range confined space and 5m at the longer distances.

However, such systems have problems. The multiple RSSI values needed for averaging or signal processing mean that you either have to wait a while to get a location fix or have the beacons transmit more often (with a shorter period) that flattens their batteries much sooner. Trilateration requires at least three devices per zone so can be costly and require significant time to setup and maintain. Using calibration is like tuning a performance car. It works well until something small changes and it needs re-tuning. If someone adds a room partition, desk or even something as simple as lots of people in the room, the calibration values become invaid. Re-calibration takes human effort and, pertinently, it’s not always easy to know when it needs re-tuning.

An alternative to trilateration is zoning. This involves putting a detector (or beacon depending on the above mentioned scenario) in each room or zone. The system works out the nearest detector or beacon and can work on just one RSSI value to get a fix quickly. The nearest zone is often all that’s required of most implementations. With zoning, if you need more accuracy in a particular zone you add more detectors in the area to get up to the 1.5m accuracy of other methods. This will obviously be impractical if you need 1.5m accuracy everywhere over a large area.

BeaconRTLS™ area zones

Angle of Arrival Locating

An alternative to trilateration and zoning is more expensive Bluetooth hardware and more complex software that makes use of Angle of Arrival (AoA). Locator hardware with multiple antennas uses Bluetooth Direction Finding to find assets to better than 1m accuracy. Location engine software uses the difference in the time of receiving the signals at multiple antennas to calculate the position. Multiple locators can also be used to cover larger areas and/or improve the accuracy using triangulation.

Unlike RSSI systems where any beacons can be used, locators tend to be tied to using the same manufacturers’ beacons. The complex hardware and software has less throughput and supports fewer beacons. The computing hardware needs to be more powerful. Systems need careful, accurate site measurements to achieve good accuracy.

Summary

Choosing a solution just because it is more accurate, rather than needed, will cost significantly more not just in hardware but in software cost, setup effort and maintenance. Work out what accuracy you need and then seek out an appropriate solution.