The development of wireless battery management systems (BMS) has gained significant traction in recent years, driven by the need for reduced wiring complexity, improved modularity, and enhanced diagnostics in battery packs. Industry initiatives to standardize wireless BMS protocols and ensure interoperability have emerged from various organizations, including the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and other regional bodies. These efforts aim to establish common frameworks for communication, security, and performance, though gaps and regional differences persist.

ISO has been actively involved in defining standards for wireless BMS, particularly within the broader context of electric vehicle (EV) and energy storage system (ESS) applications. ISO 6469, which covers safety specifications for electrically propelled road vehicles, has been expanded to include considerations for wireless communication in BMS. Additionally, ISO 15118, which outlines communication protocols between EVs and charging infrastructure, indirectly influences wireless BMS by setting precedents for secure data exchange. However, ISO’s efforts remain largely focused on wired systems, leaving room for further development in wireless-specific standards.

SAE has taken a more direct approach with its SAE J3068 standard, which provides guidelines for wireless communication in automotive battery systems. This standard emphasizes robustness, low latency, and coexistence with other wireless technologies in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands. SAE J3068 also addresses cybersecurity requirements, ensuring that wireless BMS implementations resist interference and unauthorized access. The SAE initiative is particularly influential in North America, where automotive OEMs and battery manufacturers are actively adopting wireless BMS for next-generation EVs.

In Europe, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has contributed to wireless BMS standardization through IEC 62619, which covers safety requirements for secondary lithium-based batteries in industrial applications. While not exclusively focused on wireless BMS, IEC 62619 includes provisions for wireless monitoring and control, aligning with the region’s emphasis on industrial and grid-scale energy storage. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) has also explored wireless protocols for BMS, particularly in the context of IoT-enabled battery systems.

Asia has seen a more fragmented approach, with regional players developing proprietary or semi-standardized solutions. China’s GB/T standards, for instance, include references to wireless communication in BMS but lack the granularity of ISO or SAE standards. Japanese and South Korean manufacturers often adhere to international standards while incorporating proprietary enhancements, leading to interoperability challenges in cross-regional applications.

Despite these initiatives, several gaps remain in wireless BMS standardization. One major issue is the lack of a universally accepted protocol stack. While some proposals leverage existing wireless technologies like Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) or IEEE 802.15.4, others advocate for custom solutions optimized for low latency and high reliability. This divergence creates compatibility issues, particularly in multi-vendor ecosystems.

Another gap is the inconsistent treatment of cybersecurity across regions. While SAE J3068 and ISO 21434 (road vehicle cybersecurity) provide detailed guidelines, other regions lack equivalent frameworks, leading to uneven adoption of security measures. This discrepancy is particularly problematic for global supply chains, where battery packs may integrate components from multiple regions with differing security standards.

Regional differences also manifest in frequency band allocations. For example, the 2.4 GHz band is widely available globally, but sub-GHz bands used in some wireless BMS implementations face varying regulatory restrictions. This complicates the deployment of uniform wireless BMS solutions across markets.

The absence of standardized performance metrics for wireless BMS is another challenge. Parameters such as packet error rate, latency, and network resilience are often defined by individual manufacturers rather than industry-wide benchmarks. This makes it difficult to compare systems or ensure consistent performance in critical applications like EVs.

Efforts to bridge these gaps are underway. The IEEE Standards Association has initiated discussions on a dedicated wireless BMS standard, aiming to unify communication protocols and performance criteria. Similarly, industry consortia such as the Wireless Power Consortium (WPC) are exploring extensions to their existing frameworks to accommodate wireless BMS requirements.

In summary, while ISO, SAE, and regional bodies have made progress in standardizing wireless BMS protocols, significant gaps persist in interoperability, cybersecurity, and performance metrics. Regional differences further complicate the landscape, necessitating continued collaboration among stakeholders to achieve a cohesive global framework. The evolution of wireless BMS standards will play a critical role in enabling scalable, secure, and efficient battery systems across industries.