# Experimental Investigation of Bit Errors in Coexisting BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 Channels

Diego Badillo-San-Juan, Alfonso Cortes, Said Alvarado-Marin, Alexandre

Abadie, Fabian Graf, Thomas Watteyne, Filip Maksimovic

► To cite this version:

Diego Badillo-San-Juan, Alfonso Cortes, Said Alvarado-Marin, Alexandre Abadie, Fabian Graf, et al. Experimental Investigation of Bit Errors in Coexisting BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 Channels. Performance Evaluation and Modeling in Wired and Wireless Networks (PEMWN 2025), Nov 2025, Paris, France. hal-05333735v2

HAL Id: hal-05333735

https://inria.hal.science/hal-05333735v2

Submitted on 29 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Experimental Investigation of Bit Errors in Coexisting BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 Channels

Diego Badillo-San-Juan*, Alfonso Cortes*, Said Alvarado-Marin*,
Alexandre Abadie*, Fabian Graf†, Thomas Watteyne‡, Filip Maksimovic*

* Team AIO, Inria, Paris, France

† Siemens AG, Siemens Technology, Erlangen, Germany

e-mail: first.last@{inria.fr*, siemens.com†}, twatteyne@gmail.com‡

**Abstract**—Bluetooth Low Energy and IEEE 802.15.4 are commonly used wireless communication protocols in IoT applications. Both operate in the 2.4 GHz ISM band, where their coexistence can lead to interference. We study the bit error rate (BER) under controlled timed interferences within the physical payload, varying interference power and frequency offsets. Measurements with a co-located software-defined-radio antenna are captured and shown to validate the experimental setup. IEEE 802.15.4 proves more robust to BLE interference than vice versa, consistent with results in literature. Interference at lower relative frequencies is found to have a greater impact on BER. Controlled interference causes persistent bit errors after it ends, suggesting receiver desynchronisation.

**Index Terms**—IEEE 802.15.4, BLE, Bit Errors, Physical layer.

## I. INTRODUCTION

Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) and IEEE 802.15.4 are prominent low-power wireless technology used in environmental monitoring, industrial process control, and smart building automation [1]. Despite collision-avoidance techniques (e.g. CSMA, TSCH), collisions are expected in dense deployments without cross-protocol coordination due to sharing the 2.4 GHZ ISM band [2], [3]. Quantifying physical-layer bit error rate (BER) robustness under same- and adjacent-channel interference is fundamental for implementing adaptive Forward Error Correction (FEC) on a per-channel basis [4].

Prior studies have examined BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 coexistence using metrics such as packet reception ratio and energy efficiency [5], [6], [7], [2], [3]. This work focuses on BER analysis for interference pattern characterisation, and evaluates the extent to which interference affects a packet when it is lost due to interference. Leveraging the nRF52840's Programmable Peripheral Interconnect (PPI) for symbol-level-precision synchronisation, we measure BER under variable frequency offsets and interference power levels. We measure the impact of interference at the bit level across varying power levels, thereby guiding future Successive Interference Cancellation (SIC) implementations by determining the necessary power differences for reliably recovering the strongest signal.

## II. BACKGROUND

BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 use frames with preamble, header, payload, and CRC (optional for IEEE 802.15.4), where the preamble helps with receiver symbol-timing synchronisation.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1: Channel mappings of BLE and IEEE 802.15.4.</figcaption></figure>

BLE [8] operates on 40 channels (2 MHz spacing, 2402-2480 MHz) using Gaussian FSK modulation (Fig. 1). GFSK applies Gaussian pulse-shaping filtering to binary data (1 bit/symbol), with a frequency deviation of symbols of 500 kHz at 1 Mb/s and 1000 kHz at 2 Mb/s (half the symbol rate).

IEEE 802.15.4 uses O-QPSK with DSSS on 16 channels (5 MHz spacing, 2405-2480 MHz). DSSS spreads the spectrum by transmitting at a higher rate using “chips”. In DSSS, each 4-bit symbol is spread into a 32-chip sequence and transmitted at 2 Mchip/s via O-QPSK (2 chips/symbol), achieving a 250 kbit/s data rate with a 1/8 spreading rate [9]. The half-symbol offset in O-QPSK prevents 180° phase shifts (no zero crossings). Together with half-sine pulse shaping, the modulation becomes equivalent to MSK at 2 Msymbol/s, enabling the use of a simpler FSK receiver [10].

## III. RELATED WORK

Prior coexistence studies primarily focus on reliability (packet delivery rate) and energy efficiency, with expected Wi-Fi [11] and multipath interference. Most propose link-layer avoidance techniques like channel hopping and scheduling for interference handling.

Narendra et al. [5] compare various link-layer protocols, and show BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 with TSCH offer optimal reliability-energy tradeoffs under Wi-Fi due to channel hopping. Natarajan et al. [6] analyse coexistence in single-channel
modes, and find BLE more resilient to Wi-Fi (shorter packets), while IEEE 802.15.4 better withstands BLE interference than vice-versa, due to 1/8 spreading rate with DSSS spread spectrum. La et al. [7] demonstrate minimal packet degradation in full-stack BLE star-topology networks under controlled Wi-Fi and IEEE 802.15.4 interference, highlighting the importance of link-layer for interference avoidance.

At the bit level, Barac et al. [12] demonstrate that Wi-Fi induces ramp-like bit errors in IEEE 802.15.4 physical payloads, where error rates increase toward packet ends due to rising collision probability with longer durations. Physical-header corruption causes complete packet loss (discarded packets hide early errors), explaining the observed ramp pattern. This contrasts with uniformly distributed multipath-induced bit errors within the physical payload. Graf et al. [13] extend this analysis to channel-dependent symbol errors in IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH networks, identifying that symbol error rates are channel-dependent and influenced by the testbed environment, and propose a per-channel adaptive FEC scheme [4].

Regarding interference avoidance, Carhacioglu et al. [2] introduce a cooperative orchestrator for BLE/IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH networks that uses scheduling matrices to prevent collisions. Hajizadeh et al. [3] extend this approach with probabilistic models, demonstrating high collision-free rates especially under optimal timing alignments.

No prior work has examined BER robustness for both BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 under controlled physical-payload interference. We address this gap with an experimental setup enabling sub-symbol timing synchronisation for interference signals with controlled power levels and frequency offsets.

## IV. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Our setup uses two transmitters, one receiver, and one orchestrator (Fig. 2) in an office environment. nRF52840-DK boards are connected to 2.4 GHz antennas via MXHS83QE3000 connectors. Transmit antennas are symmetrically positioned 60 cm from the receiver, with orchestrator-synchronised transmissions.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2: Wired and over-the-air connections between interferer, affected transmitter, and receiver.</figcaption></figure>

To time an interference within the physical payload of a packet (avoiding header corruption), we use the nRF52840's PPI [14] for direct peripheral-to-peripheral connections (GPIO → timer → radio). An orchestrator-toggled GPIO event initiates a timer that triggers radio transmission after a programmed delay, achieving 62.5 ns synchronisation (one 16 MHz clock tick, to which the PPI is synchronised).

<table><caption>TABLE I: Experiment parameters for inter-protocol and tone interference $^{a}$, and same-protocol interference $^{b}$.</caption><thead><tr><td>Parameter</td><td>Values</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Power (affected)</td><td>0 dBm <sup>a</sup>, -40 dBm <sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Power (interferer)</td><td>(-4, 8) dBm <sup>a</sup>, (-40, -8) dBm <sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Frequency (affected) <sup>a,b</sup></td><td>2425 MHz</td></tr><tr><td>Frequency offset (interferer)</td><td>0, ±1, ±2 MHz <sup>a</sup>, ±1 channel <sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Payload size (affected) <sup>a,b</sup></td><td>BLE: 124 B, IEEE 802.15.4: 84 B<br>BLE: 124 B, IEEE 802.15.4: 12 B</td></tr><tr><td>Payload size (interferer) <sup>a</sup></td><td>BLE: 68 B, IEEE 802.15.4: 36 B</td></tr><tr><td>Payload size (interferer) <sup>b</sup></td><td>BLE: 255 µs, IEEE 802.15.4: 940 µs</td></tr><tr><td>Interferer delay <sup>a,b</sup></td><td>BLE: 645 µs, IEEE 802.15.4: 1088 µs</td></tr><tr><td>Tone duration <sup>a</sup></td><td>BLE: 645 µs, IEEE 802.15.4: 1088 µs</td></tr></tbody></table>

Once enabled, radios enter a fixed-duration ramp-up state (protocol-agnostic). Post-CRC transmission, carriers persist for 6 µs (BLE) or 21 µs (IEEE 802.15.4) before shutdown (Fig. 3). A 4-byte identifier is inserted at the beginning of the payload for debugging. Interference begins after this identifier, accounting for ramp-up effects (Fig. 3).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3: Timing diagram of a packet under interference. Upward and downward arrows represent radio task and events respectively.</figcaption></figure>

Table I summarises the parameters for both inter-protocol and same-protocol interference, as well as unmodulated tone interferences. The affected transmitter uses constant power/frequency, while interferer power/frequency vary. Used frequency offsets do not necessarily align with actual BLE or IEEE 802.15.4 channels: e.g. there is no BLE channel at 2425 MHz, nor IEEE 802.15.4 channels at 2426 MHz or 2427 MHz (Fig. 1). However, given that offsets up to 2 MHz between protocols cover all possible inter-channel interference scenarios, the affected transmitter frequency is kept constant for simplicity at 2425 MHz. We test interference powers up to 8 dBm (nRF52840 maximum) to assess possible receiver non-linear saturation effects.

## V. RESULTS

Using 4,000 packets per configuration, we analysed average BER and bit-error distributions for BLE at 1 Mb/s and IEEE 802.15.4 under mutual interference or an unmodulated tone. BER was calculated as the ratio of payload bit errors during the interference interval (defined by the first and last error in a reference interfered packet measurement), averaged over all received packets from the controlled setup, regardless of CRC. To enable bit-error pattern analysis in the physical payload, the affected transmitter used a constant payload, while the
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4: Average BER and standard deviation for BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 interfered with each other or by a tone. Affected transmitted packets are set to a constant power of 0 dBm and a frequency of 2425 MHz.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5: Average BER and standard deviation for BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 interfered by each other. The power of the affected transmitted packets is set to -40 dBm.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6: Bit error probability per bit position within the physical payload under same-protocol interference at low transmission power (-40 dBm) on an adjacent channel (2 MHz and 5 MHz).</figcaption></figure>

interferer's payload was pseudo-randomly modified by cycling through a pre-stored 10,120-byte random array.

Fig. 4 shows that average BER increases with interference power, approaching 50% for same frequency interferences. For both BLE and tone interferences, IEEE 802.15.4 exhibits lower average BER than BLE near 0 dB relative interference power, noticeable errors emerging at 4 dBm interference (vs. 0 dBm for BLE). Lower interference frequencies consistently induce higher BER than higher frequencies.

For same-protocol interferences, frequency offsets of 2 MHz for BLE and 5 MHz for IEEE 802.15.4 are used, corresponding to their respective channel separations. Since adjacent-channel interference in these cases is expected to be minimal, interference powers are set up to 48 dB higher than the affected transmitter's power of -40 dBm. Fig. 5 shows that BER approaches 50% under same-channel interference. BLE shows higher BER than IEEE 802.15.4 with interferences at equal power level (over 20% for BLE vs. around 2% for IEEE 802.15.4). Adjacent-band interference appears at 28 dB above transmitter power for BLE vs. 48 dB for IEEE 802.15.4, with negative offsets yielding higher BER (matching Fig. 4 trends). Non-zero standard deviation in adjacent bands is attributed to external interference due to low transmission

power (-40 dBm). This claim is evidenced with the ramp-like bit error pattern in Fig. 6, resembling non-synchronised Wi-Fi interferences patterns reported by Barac et al. [12]. The observed bit error probability is higher in the IEEE 802.15.4 example because its packets remain on air longer, (250 kb/s vs. 1 Mb/s for BLE, with payload lengths of 124 bytes and 84 bytes respectively).

For inter-protocol interferences, Fig. 7 shows bit-error rates on a per-bit-position basis, for an interferer 8 dB stronger than the 0 dBm affected transmitter. Bit positions correspond to the physical payload after the 4-byte packet identifier. For BLE interfered by IEEE 802.15.4 and vice versa, there is a distinct pattern with a near 100% probability of error at some bit positions and near 0% at others, whereas during the rest of the interference, the average bit error probability remains closer to 50%. This is due to the preamble sequence being constant, while the contents of the physical payload vary pseudo-randomly per bit position. Notably, IEEE 802.15.4 interfered by BLE shows lower variance in bit error probability than the reverse scenario. Errors also persist after the controlled interference ends, except for BLE interfered with by an un-modulated tone. This behaviour is ruled out as being caused by defects in the interferer transmitters (such as misalignment in time relative to the affected packets, or persistent transmission after the radio being disabled), because persistent errors occur in IEEE 802.15.4 under tone interference (unlike BLE); and
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7: Bit error probability per bit position within the physical payload under inter-protocol and unmodulated tone interference. The interference is at the same frequency as the transmitter and 8 dB higher in power.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8: Spectrograms of SDR measurements for BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 interfered by each other or a tone. The interference is at the same frequency as the transmitter and at a power level 8 dB higher.</figcaption></figure>

SDR measurements (Fig. 8) confirm interference stops before the affected packet ends.

Fig. 9 quantifies this persistent error effect, showing the percentage of packets with at least one error post-interference. Higher interference power correlates with more persistent errors. IEEE 802.15.4 experiences fewer persistent errors after BLE interference than BLE does after IEEE 802.15.4 interference at equivalent powers. While BLE shows no persistent errors after tone interference, IEEE 802.15.4 does. In all cases, negative frequency offsets result in a higher percentage of packets with persistent errors after interference.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 9: Percentage of received packets with persistent bit errors for BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 under mutual interference or tone interference. No persistent bit errors were observed for BLE with a tone interferer.</figcaption></figure>

Fig. 10 generalises the inter-protocol and unmodulated tone interference results across the ISM band, beyond transmissions at 2425 MHz. It plots average BER for both a constant 0 MHz interference frequency offset (varying power), and a constant 8 dBm interferer power (varying frequency offset). Key observations are that IEEE 802.15.4 generally induces higher BER on BLE than BLE induces on IEEE 802.15.4, and negative frequency offsets consistently result in higher BER. While average BER values vary across ISM band centre transmission frequencies, these two observations remain consistent in each separate case. These deviations in the average BER trend could potentially be influenced by antenna characteristics, such as impedance matching, which were not specifically tested in this study. Further antenna characterisation would be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

## VI. DISCUSSION

The results show that BER depends on the affected protocol, interference power, and frequency offset. Analysis of the average BER bar plots reveals that IEEE 802.15.4 is more robust to BLE interference than BLE is to IEEE 802.15.4 interference at the bit level. This is particularly evident when comparing average BER values at equivalent interference power levels. IEEE 802.15.4 starts to exhibit bit errors at a higher interference power when compared to BLE, with minimal average BER below 2% at an interference 2 dBm higher, where BLE exhibits already a BER around 15%. As
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>(a) Interference frequency offset is fixed at 0 MHz relative to the affected transmitter.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>(b) Interference power is fixed at 8 dB relative to the affected transmitter.</figcaption></figure>

Fig. 10: ISM band generalisation of average BER and standard deviation for BLE 1 Mbit/s and IEEE 802.15.4 under mutual interference or tone interference. The frequency offset is calculated relative to the affected transmitter's fixed frequency of 2425 MHz, and the affected transmitted packets are set to a constant power of 0 dBm.

interference power increases, both protocols approach the theoretical 50% BER limit expected under random interference. These results support the conclusions of Natarajan *et al.* [6], who found that IEEE 802.15.4 is more reliable under BLE interference than BLE is under IEEE 802.15.4 interference using packet delivery rate as the reliability metric.

This robustness disparity comes primarily from IEEE 802.15.4's DSSS: even when individual chips are corrupted, the receiver can recover bit information by matching received 32-chip sequences to the closest valid sequence (minimum Hamming distance among 16 predefined options). This also explains the lower variance in bit error probability observed for IEEE 802.15.4 under BLE interference (Fig. 7). While IEEE 802.15.4 interferer payloads vary pseudo-randomly at the byte level, the limited set of valid chip sequences constrains error distributions in the affected protocol.

Results indicate frequency offset asymmetry: negative interference offset consistently cause higher BER than positive interference offsets. SDR measurements confirm that both protocols have symmetric bandwidths around their centre frequencies. The observed asymmetric interference effects, even with single-frequency tone interferers, suggest that the cause is receiver-side asymmetric band-pass filtering before decoding in the radio peripheral of the nRF52840. This asymmetry is confirmed in the RX selectivity section of the nRF52840

Product Specification [14].

We also observed persistent bit errors post-interference in a subset of analysed packets, with the number of affected packets correlating to the interference power. Transmission-side issues and external interferences causing these persistent errors are ruled out because: (1) BLE exhibits no persistent errors under tone interference, discarding incorrect controlled interference synchronisation as a possible transmitter-side problem with the setup, (2) SDR spectrograms measured at a co-located receiver antenna confirm that the interference ends within the affected payload (Fig. 8), and (3) pre-interference errors are absent, which effectively discards external interferences issues. We therefore hypothesise that the persistent errors result from receiver desynchronisation at the timing error detector, due to symbol timing loss during the interference.

While primary results use BLE at 1 Mb/s, test for BLE at 2 Mb/s show similar trends with reduced robustness to IEEE 802.15.4 sideband interference at offsets of 2 MHz, consistent with its wider bandwidth occupancy.

Our wireless setup effectively characterises interference but remains susceptible to environmental factors which may introduce inconsistencies, such as multipath fading, external noise and antenna directivity. A wired approach using isolated active power combiners was considered but deemed impractical due to high costs and scalability limits with many transmitters.

This work proposes a method for studying physical payload interferences between BLE and IEEE 802.15.4, using one af-
fected transmitter and a single interferer. A possible extension
involves scaling these experiments to a larger deployment to
study interference patterns and bit errors under more complex
network conditions. Zhang *et al*. survey testbeds for Industrial
Internet of Things applications [15]. Among the reviewed
testbeds, those supporting IEEE 802.15.4 and BLE, and that
are open access are particularly relevant to our study. FIT
IoT-LAB [11] meets the requirements, making it a possible
candidate for future experiments, as it incorporates Nordic
nRF52840-DK boards, ensuring compatibility and simplifying
the transition to a larger-scale environment. FIT IoT-LAB's
open-access model enables remote experimentation, firmware
deployment, and data collection. However, physical access
would be necessary to wire the boards to an orchestrator to set
up PPI for precise synchronisation. Another scalability option
for easy reproduction of results is to use a Software-Defined
Radio testbed such as FIT CorteXlab [16], where interferences
could be synchronised using the OctoClock, which provides
a common timing reference for the USRP SDRs available in
the testbed.

The code and data for the experimental setup and figure
reproduction are publicly available<fnref n="1" />.

VII. CONCLUSION

We present a controlled experimental analysis of bit-level
interference between BLE, IEEE 802.15.4, and unmodulated
tones. We experimentally show that IEEE 802.15.4 exhibits
greater robustness to BLE interference than BLE does to
IEEE 802.15.4 interference at equivalent power levels, cor-
roborating prior reliability studies. We further observe that
lower-frequency interference consistently induce higher BER
than higher-frequency interference on nRF52840 receivers.
Furthermore, interference can cause persistent bit errors after
it ends, with the occurrence rate correlating with interference
power. We hypothesise receiver timing desynchronisation as
the likely cause of these persistent errors.

Looking forward, we will focus on understanding and iso-
lating the causes behind persistent errors and the asymmetry of
negative frequency offset interference using a software-defined
radio receiver, with precise control over the demodulation
process (ADC sampling rate, timing error detection, and fil-
tering). Then, building on the experimentally quantified power
difference required for reliable demodulation under controlled
interference conditions for each protocol, we will explore the
implementation of Successive Interference Cancellation (SIC)
in software-defined receivers, a physical-layer approach with
the potential to reduce bit error rates in gateways within dense
IoT deployments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was funded by the French National Research
Agency (ANR-22-PEFT-0007) as part of France 2030 and
the NF-FITNESS project, and by the European Union's Hori-
zon Europe Framework Programme under Grant Agreement
No. 101093046, project "OpenSwarm".

REFERENCES

[1] P. Tiwari, V. P. Saxena, R. G. Mishra, and D. Bhavsar, "Wireless Sensor Networks: Introduction, Advantages, Applications and Research Challenges," *HCTL Open International Journal of Technology Innovations and Research (IJTIR)*, vol. 14, May 2015.

[2] O. Carhacioglu, P. Zand, and M. Nabi, "Cooperative Coexistence of BLE and Time Slotted Channel Hopping Networks," in *International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC)*. Bologna, Italy: IEEE, 9-12 September 2018.

[3] H. Hajizadeh, M. Nabi, M. Vermeulen, and K. Goossens, "Coexistence Analysis of Co-Located BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH Networks," *IEEE Sensors Journal*, vol. 21, no. 15, May 2021.

[4] F. Graf, T. Watteyne, F. Maksimovic, and M. Villnow, "Channel-Dependent Forward Error Correction for IEEE 802.15.4 O-QPSK," in *International Conference on Smart Internet of Things (SmartIoT)*. Shenzhen, China: IEEE, 14-16 November 2024.

[5] P. Narendra, S. Duquennoy, and T. Voigt, "BLE and IEEE 802.15.4 in the IoT: Evaluation and Interoperability Considerations," in *Internet of Things. IoT Infrastructures: Second International Summit (IoT360)*, Rome, Italy, 27-29 October 2015.

[6] R. Natarajan, P. Zand, and M. Nabi, "Analysis of Coexistence between IEEE 802.15.4, BLE and IEEE 802.11 in the 2.4 GHz ISM band," in *Annual Conference of Industrial Electronics Society (IECON)*. Florence, Italy: IEEE, 24-27 October 2016.

[7] Q. D. La, D. Nguyen-Nam, M. Van Ngo, and T. Q. Quek, "Coexistence Evaluation of Densely Deployed BLE-based Body Area Networks," in *Conference on Global Communications (GLOBECOM)*. Singapore, Singapore: IEEE, 4-8 December 2017.

[8] B. S. I. Group, "Bluetooth core specification v5.4 - physical layer specification," January 2023.

[9] R. Schwarz, "Generation of ieee 802.15.4 signals application note," Rohde & Schwarz, Tech. Rep., 2016.

[10] J. Notor, A. Caviglia, and G. Levy, "CMOS RFIC Architectures for IEEE 802.15.4 Networks," *Cadence Design Systems, Inc*, vol. 41, 2003.

[11] C. Adjih, E. Baccelli, E. Fleury, G. Harter, N. Mitton, T. Noel, R. Pissard-Gibollet, F. Saint-Marcel, G. Schreiner, J. Vandaele, and T. Watteyne, "FIT IoT-LAB: A Large Scale Open Experimental IoT Testbed," in *World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT)*. Milan, Italy: IEEE, 14-16 December 2015, pp. 459-464.

[12] F. Barac, M. Gidlund, and T. Zhang, "Scrutinizing Bit- and Symbol-Errors of IEEE 802.15.4 Communication in Industrial Environments," *IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement*, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 1783-1794, July 2014.

[13] F. Graf, T. Watteyne, F. Maksimovic, and M. Villnow, "Bit-and Symbol-Error Patterns in IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH Mode," in *Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC)*. Paris, France: IEEE, 26-29 June 2024.

[14] nRF52840 Product Specification, Nordic Semiconductor, 2024, v1.11.

[15] T. Zhang, C. Xue, J. Wang, Z. Yun, N. Lin, and S. Han, "A Survey on Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) Testbeds for Connectivity Research," *arXiv preprint*, 2024.

[16] A. Massouri, L. Cardoso, B. Guillon, F. Hutu, G. Villemaud, T. Ris-
set, and J.-M. Gorce, "CorteXlab: An Open FPGA-based Facility
for Testing SDR & Cognitive Radio Networks in a Reproducible
Environment," in *Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM
WKSHPS)*. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: IEEE, 27 April - 2 May 2014,
pp. 103-104.

<footnote n="1">¹ https://github.com/SDMote/ble-802154-interference</footnote>