university of texas in arlingtonuniversalrfid.commercev3.com/downloads/metalcraft-rfid...3 | p a g e...

Multi-Surface RFID Tag

Benchmarking Report Final Report December 22st, 2015

Performance and Benchmarking of

Multi-Surface UHF RFID Tags

Dr. Erick C. Jones Sr., Ph.D, P.E, CSSBB

Principle Investigator

Industrial and manufacturing Systems Engineering

The University of Texas at Arlington

Joshua Bolton, CSSGB

Co-Principle Investigator



Ankan Addy, CSSYB

RAID Project Team Lead



Raghavendra Kumar Punugu

PWD Group Project Team Lead



UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

IN ARLINGTON

RAID

Labs

an

d P

WD

Gro

up

s Tec

hn

olo

gy

1 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report

Radio Frequency and Auto-Identification Labs

University of Texas at Arlington

Table of Contents

Table of Contents……..…...……………………….…………………………….1

Executive Summmary……………………………………………………..2

Section 1

Introduction…..………………………………………....…………………4

Section 2

Background..……………………………………………………………...5

Section 3

Methodolog.....…………..…………………………………………….….8

Section 4

Results…..……………………………………………………………….12

Section 5

Future Work…..…………………………………………………………24

Bibliography…………………………………………………………….25

Index 1: RSSI Data Tables…..…………………………………………….26

Index 2: Tag Descriptions…………………………………………………35

Index 3: Additional Charts and Graphs…………………………………...45

2 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



0. Executive Summary:

As the price of passive radio frequency identification (RFID) tags continues to decrease,

more and more companies are looking into item-level tagging. Although, the use of RFID is

simple, its proper application should be studied in order to achieve maximum efficiency and

utilization in the industry. This paper is intended to demonstrate the test results of various multi-

surface tags from different manufacturers for their readability under varying conditions such as;

orientation of tags with respect to reader, distance of tag from the reader, and materials used for

embedding tags. These conditions could affect the reliability of RFID systems used for varied

applications. In this paper, we implement a Design for Six Sigma Research (DFSS-R)

methodology that allows for reliability testing of RFID systems. The results will allow

MetalCraft, Inc. to more accurately assess their RFID tags based upon the conditions presented

in these trials.

The primary figures in this report are the RAID Quadrant and the Read Rates by Material

graph. The RAID Quadrant, in figure 0.1, shows the tags in terms of two parameters: Readability

and precision.

Figure 0.1. RAID Quadrant

The readability of the tag is a measure of how often the tag reader over all the parameters. The

precision of the tag type is defined as how repeatable the readings are for a given tag type. As

3 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



you can tell, the three best tags are the RAID ID numbers 510, 503, and 508. The tags that

struggled the most are the 509, 506, and 505. The names of the tags can be found later in this

report.

The second figure, Figure 0.2., represents the readability of the tags on the three different

materials. All ten tags are listed, however, tag 509 failed to read at any distance greater than 2

feet. This graph displays the tags by material, and thus shows which tag is best for which

material. The general trend for multi-surface tags is that they preform best on metal, 2nd best in

open air, and 3rd best on cardboard.

Figure 0.2. Read Rate percentages by Material

All though these are the graphs which we believe are the most important, there are

several more graphs and tables throughout the report that are very important. The remainder of

the report will contain details on exactly how the procedures were carried out, what was used,

and the exact results. Index 1 provides the data for all MetalCraft, Inc tags.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A I R M E T A L C A R D B O A R D

READ RATE BY MATERIAL Universal

Universal Mini

Universal Hard

Silver Line

Silver Line Slim

prox

IQ400

IQ 600

Dot XS

Micro

4 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



1. Introduction:

Automatic identification of objects has been very prominent in many fields

mainly because of ease of use and high efficiency. Auto-ID includes bar codes, smart cards,

biometrics and voice recognition, magnetic stripes, RFID, and numerous other devices.

However, RFID has many benefits, especially over bar codes; RFIDs are non-line-of-sight,

reusable, they have the ability to withstand harsh environments, and their high encryption

prevents counterfeit. All these features have drawn many organizations to opt for RFID.

The implementation of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology is rising and

reaching new horizons primarily due to the decreasing cost of RFID tags. The value in potential

of these tags is becoming more widely known as companies take an interest to evaluating the life

of an RFID tag throughout the supply chain. RFID has already made a large impact in the retail

sector by improving three major areas: out-of-stocks, inventory shrinkage, and labor costs

(O’Connor). The mandates of Walmart 2003 and DOD 2004 compelled all their vendors to use

RFID in their supply chain, which eventually turned out to be a success for further adoption by

other agencies and organizations world-wide.

As new technologies continue to emerge into the market, coupled with lower priced,

more reliable tags, RFID is becoming enabled to move into areas, other than just the supply

chain. Now, there is a lot of demand on the tag manufacturers, and few organizations have in-

house expertise to deploy their technology. As a result, many organizations are still depending

upon the RFID vendors’ assessment of their own products, so this creates the possibility of

biased results in terms of tag performance swaying the companies in ways that might not actually

benefit their businesses. This means that there is a need for unbiased and reliable sources of

information about the tag performance. If this need was left unmet, a door could be opened to

misleading claims concerning individual tag performance and unreliable sources of information

making way to different companies, which could, and has, resulted in credibility issues with the

RFID end-users (Moncombu Ramakrishnan, 2005).

5 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



2. Background:

Whether or not we realize it, radio frequency identification (RFID) is an integral part of

our life. RFID increases productivity and convenience. RFID is used for hundreds, if not

thousands, of applications such as preventing theft of automobiles and merchandise, collecting

tolls without stopping, gaining entrance to buildings, automobile parking, providing ski-lift

access, and the growing opportunity to track a wealth of assets in supply chain management.

RFID technology is also currently being pressed into service for use in U.S. Homeland Security

with applications such as securing border crossings and intermodal container shipments, while

expediting low-risk activities. RFID is a term coined primarily for short-range radio technology

used to communicate mainly digital information between both a stationary location and a

movable object, or between two movable objects.

A variety of radio frequencies and transmission techniques are used in RFID systems.

RFID is generally characterized by use of simple devices on one end of the link, and more

complex devices on the other end of the link. The simple devices (often called tags or

transponders) are small and inexpensive, so as to be deployed economically in very large

quantities. They are attached to the objects that are to be tracked, and then they transmit data

automatically. The more complex devices (often called readers or interrogators) are more

capable and are usually connected to a host computer or network. Radio frequencies from 100

kHz to 10 GHz have been used.

The newest of these frequencies is the Gen 2 standard, made popular by the RAIN

initiative. Gen 2 passive tags are both widely accept and used, in most RFID applications. We

can see this in Bolton’s scale of RFID Standards, Figure x. In this figure, the tag types are listed

by what quantity of tags are in the market, the greatest being RAIN (Jones, Gray, Wijemanne,

and Bolton).

6 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Figure 2.1. Bolton’s scale of RFID Standards

A leader in the identification products industry since 1950, Metalcraft, manufactures a

variety of customized asset tags in two general categories. The first category contains; UID tags,

bar code and/or serialized tags for asset tracking and/or identification. The second category RFID

tags - including harsh environment RFID tags and a variety of metal mount RFID tags - for

RFID asset tracking. Metalcraft RFID labels cover a myriad of asset tracking applications and

access control applications. In addition, Metalcraft’s state-of-the-art RFID converting

capabilities allow for customized solutions for any application. Metalcraft’s newest RFID

innovation, the Universal RFID product line, features surface-independent tags with a patented

inlay designed to obtain excellent read ranges regardless of the surface – metal, plastic or even

wood.

In addition, every one of Metalcraft’s RFID labels can withstand repeated usage in tough

environments because they were designed with protective features that could measure up to

environmental conditions that could affect the performance. Each product also features digital

subsurface printing that showcases company information and/or logos and may include variable

data such as bar code and/or human readable number – allowing users to utilize both bar code

and RFID technologies.

7 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



The Radio Frequency and Auto-Identification (RAID) labs at the University of Texas at

Arlington were created to provide an unbiased and reliable source of RFID information. The

RAID lab’s main research goals are concerned with the implementation and standardization of

RFID in Healthcare, manufacturing, Information systems, quality control, Aerospace,

warehousing, process analysis, automated sensing, Etc. We have had a history of bringing

research dollars, funding students, and publishing papers.

Dr. Erick C. Jones, RAID lab director and Professor at UT Arlington, has published over

150 manuscripts on the topic of RFID. Previous contracts and grants include; NASA, NSF, NIH,

etc. There are close to a dozen Ph.D. students, 40 Masters Students, and 20 undergraduates. Our

current team is 5 Ph.D. candidates, 7 Masters Students, and 4 undergraduates. The RAID labs

has provided such information on tag performance to companies in the past, and is doing so

again this case for Metalcraft. For this research on tag performance, different parameters were

taken into account; distance of tag from reader, different orientations of tag, to test the

readability of tags attached to different materials, varying signal strength with respect to tag

orientation and distance from reader.

The need for a bench mark of RFID tags is long overdue. RF waves are a well-known and

well understood phenomenon, but to date a benchmark of tag performance doesn’t exist. A bench

marking of the field would provide companies a major advantage in the development and

synthesis of RFID tags. These tests of tag performances are repeatable in nature, so as to help us

compare the performance of different tags, which eventually leads to better decision-making in

real time scenario for companies.

This paper contributes to the testing of RFID tags in different environments, and focuses

on tag performance with respect to each parameter. An experimental approach is used and the

paper is organized as follows: Section 2 gives a background of RFID technology. Section 3

presents the measurements and methodology. The results are presented in Section 4 and

discussed in Section 5. Finally, conclusions are drawn from the results in Section 6.

8 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



3. Methodology:

The RAID labs follows a specific methodology for the tetsing of the tags. This method

follows a Design for Six Sigma – Research methodology. This methodology, developed by Dr.

Jones, has been utilized for over 10 years in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and the

University of Texas at Arlington. Our statistical, experimental design comes from the standard

best practices of engineering statistics. These methods serve as the base line for all proceedures

in the RAID lab. Every experiment has it’s own parameters, but must follow the previously

mentioned rules and regulations.

3.1. Aparatus

The design of experiment dictates that a certain proceedure must be followed, but to

follow that precedure we need a specific set of equipment. The equipment used will be the same

that is dictated in the RAID lab guidelines.

3.1.1. 1 Impinj Raceway R-220, 4 Port, FCC, UHF Fixed RFID reader

3.1.2. 1 Far Field LHP Antenna, FCC

3.1.3. 1 2ft Tall PVC Stand Construct for holding the tags

3.1.4. 1 Adjustable Stand for holding the Antenna

3.1.5. 1 Tape Measure for measuring the max distances

3.1.6. 1 6” by 6” by .125” 16 Guage steel Plate

3.1.7. 1 6” by 6” by .125” Honeycomb Cardboard Plate

3.1.8. 100 Multi-surface RFID Tags used

3.1.8.1. 10 MetalCraft Universal Asset Tag

3.1.8.2. 10 MetalCraft Universal Mini Asset Tag

3.1.8.3. 10 MetalCraft Universal Hard Asset Tag

3.1.8.4. 10 Confidex Silverline tags

3.1.8.5. 10 Confidex Silverline Slim tags

3.1.8.6. 10 Omni-ID Prox tags

3.1.8.7. 10 Omni-ID IQ400 tags

3.1.8.8. 10 Omni-ID IQ600 tags

3.1.8.9. 10 Xerafy Dot XS tags

3.1.8.10. 10 Xerafy Micro tags

3.1.9. 1 Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop Computer

9 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Figure 3.1.6.a. Impinj Speedway Fixed Reader

Figure 3.1.6.b PVC Stand for Holding Tags

In addition to these tools, we utiliized the facilities at UT Arlington, and several data

analysis softwares. These tools were all examined before, during, and after the testing to make

sure that they remained in working condition.

10 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



3.2. Procedure

In this experiment four parameters are taken into account: Tag quantity, orientation,

distance, and Material. 10 different tags are taken into consideration. The tags are tested on three

mediums; air, metal, and cardboard. The third dimension of this study is distance, the 6 distances

are 5ft, 10ft, 15ft, 20ft, 25 ft., and maximum distance. The fourth and final dimension is

Orientation. Four orientations of 0, 45, 90 and 180 degrees are used. A complex data taking

method is ensues. Each tag must be tested on each level of each parameter.

3.2.1. Setup for Testing

The procedure for testing of a tag is as follows. The tags, except for the one that is to be

tested are placed in a secure location where they cannot be read, or interfere with the readings.

The Impinj Speedway R220 fixed reader is attached to the Dell Inspiron 15 laptop. The Far Field

LHP Antenna is then attached to the reader the laptop computer is then turned on, and the Impinj

MultiReader 6.6.10.240 for Speedway Gen 2 RFID software is opened. The 10 second scan

option is selected. The testing is now ready to begin.

3.2.2. Tag Testing

The tag that is to be tested, is placed on the PVC Stand Construct, between the two

vertical pipes, and between the two Horizontal sections at the top. The tag is initially placed at 0

degrees, in air, and at a distance of 5 feet. Then all personnel are moved behind the antenna so

that there is no chance for interference. The scan button on the Impinj software is pressed, and

the tag is read for a period of 10 seconds. The team then changes the orientation to 45 degrees,

and the whole of section 3.2.2. is repeated. The orientation is then changed again, and this is one

until all orientations have been tried. The Impinj software provides the Read Signal Strength

Intensity (RSSI) value. The values are then recorded for analysis. Once the RSSI values have

been recorded for each orientation the PVC Stand Construct is move to 10 feet, and the whole

process is repeated. The PVC Stand is subsequently moved to the remaining distances following

the same procedure for the duration of that tag. The tag is then put back into the secure area.

11 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



3.2.3. Testing the Same Tag Type

Once a one tag of a type is finished, the computer, and fixed reader are both switched off.

The operator counts to ten and then turns them both back on. This is to ensure that the data being

taken is not skewed by a random good run of the equipment. Then a second tag of the same type

is selected from the secure area. Then the Tag Setup and Tag Testing Sections are repeated.

3.2.4. Changing Tag Types.

After all ten of the tags of a single type have been tested, the operator and research staff

begin a new type of tag. The procedures 3.2.1. – 3.2.4. are then repeated until all ten types of tags

are finished. At this point in the process all of the data for all ten types of tags has been recorded

to the RAID lab data base, and the data analysis can begin. Several sets of researchers operated

the reader and antenna, and took data. This is to ensure that we have as little inherent human

error as possible in our data set.

Chart 3.2.4. Tag Index

Tag Index Table

Tag Type Tag Maker RAID ID

Universal MetalCraft 501 Universal Mini MetalCraft 502 Universal Hard MetalCraft 503

Silverline Confidex 504 Silverline Slim Confidex 505

Prox Omni-ID 506 IQ400 Omni-ID 507 IQ600 Omni-ID 508 Dot XS Xerafy 509 Micro Xerafy 510

The methodology of the RAID Labs is based in consistancy and repeatability. Our goal is

to provide an unbiased account of the data gathered, and to bring you impartial analysis.

12 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



4. Results:

The results section of this report makes up the majority of the report. Due to the large

quantity of information the section is broken up into 3 stages: Summary, Analysis of

Benchmarking, and In-depth tag analysis. The data, and additional graphs, will be located in the

appendices. The summary stage will give a brief analysis of the other two sections. It will talk

about how your tag placed in the study, and give a brief analysis specific to your tags. The

Analysis of Benchmarking stage will be entirely devoted to providing a holistic review of all of

the tag performances. It will contain data on how all of the tags performed over the specified

parameters: Distance, Orientation, and Material. The final stage will be In-Depth Tag Analysis.

This stage will give you details about your specific tag. It will talk about your strengths and

weaknesses, and provide more details as to why you placed the way you did.

4.1. Summary

The summary section of the results section is meant to provide a quick over all analysis

that will list how each tag performed over the three variable parameters: Distane, Orientation,

and Material. This section will focus on 4 main graphs: Readability by distance, Readability by

Orientation, Readability by Material, and The RAID Quadrant. The three graphs of Readability

are sumamry graphs, in which each tag’s readablity is shown by the sub-levels of each of the

given parameters.The RAID quadrant will showcase the overall readability of the tag by the

Precision of the tag readings. The Readability, or read rate, of a tag is measured by taking the

theoretical max RSSI and comparing it to the actual RSSI value of the transmision of the tag.

This number is then calculated as a percentage.

13 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Chart 4.1 Tag Ranking by Precision Percentage

The two main portions of the Magic Quadrant are the Precision percentage and the

Readability. The Chart 4.1 gives the precision percentages for all of the tags in this experiment.

The precision percentage is simply a measure of close your RSSI values for a given distance are

to each other. The Readability of each of the tags is determined by the RSSI value, and is shown

in table 4.2.

Chart 4.2 Tag Ranking by Readability

4.1.1. Magic Quadrant

The RAID Quadrant is the staple identifier of a any tag testing procedure. The quadrant

provides the tags, by RAID ID, ranked in two categories: Overall Readability and Precision. The

RAID quadrant, figure x, ranks tags on a scale of 0% to 100%. The readability of a tag is the

RAID ID Precision % Rank

501 31% 8

502 35% 7

503 74% 1

504 43% 6

505 55% 3

506 54% 4

507 30% 9

508 53% 5

509 0% 10

510 73% 2

RAID ID Readability Rank

501 60% 4

502 40% 7

503 85% 2

504 58% 5

505 33% 8

506 21% 9

507 43% 6

508 76% 3

509 0% 10

510 86% 1

14 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



average of all of the readings taken for that type of tag. This means that all 7200 readings: 10

tags, 4 Orientations, 6 Distances, and 3 materials are taken into account when providing the

readability.

The precision of the tag type is defined as how repeatable the readings are for a given tag

type. The percentage of precision is derived from finding the average standard deviation of the

readings for that given tag. The smaller the standard deviation from the mean, the greater chance

of having repeatable data.

Figure 4.1. RAID Performance Quadrant

The numbers listed in the quadrant are the RAID ID numbers of the tags, found in table

3.2.4, the Tag Index. The best palce to be in the quadrant is the top right corner. This is because

the precision and readability are highest in that corner. When Readability and Precision are high

then the tag will read well in many different environments, orientations, and distances. When the

precision is high it means that the readings are consistant and repeatable, so we know there is a

high degree of consistancy in the tags. As we can see there are three tags which beat the

competition: 508, 510, and 503. Tag 510 has slight better readability, and tag 503 has slightly

better precision, and 508 is a clear third. All of these tags are very good tags. Tag 509 failed to

15 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



read at any distance greater than 2 feet, and thus has zero for both Readability and Precision. The

other tags to note are 501 and 504. 501 places 4 for readability, but it’s precision is much lower.

Tag 504 has slightly greater precision than 501, but is not as good for readability.

4.1.2. Read Rate Scatterplot by Orientation

The purpose of this ‘Orientation Scatterplot”, shown in Figure 4.1.2, is to give a general

overview of individual and comparative tag performance, in terms of “Read Rate Percentages,”

at 4 different orientations. In order to test the overall competency of each of the 10 different

makes of tags, orientation was one imperative factor that had to be taken into consideration.

What effect would a change in orientation of a tag have on its readability? For example,

if the tag was placed on an object and that object was scanned on its side, would that make a

significant difference of the tag’s readability? To test this, 10 tags of each make were tested at

each of the 4 orientations 15 separate times, and then averages were calculated. The graph’s data

points represent each make of tag’s average reading percentages at each of the 4 orientations.

Figure 4.1.2. depicts 2 key things: first, on average, how well each tag performed at the

four tested orientations (0, 45, 90 & 180 degrees), and second, how well the tags generally did

compared to each other at these orientations. The trends between each data point of each tag

show whether or not the average reading percentages increased or decreased when orientation

was changed. With this in mind, different comparisons and interpretations of data can be easily

read and understood. For example, according to the graph, the Micro tag seemed to perform best

at every orientation out of all the other tags. Or maybe one would see that reading percentages

16 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



for every tag, except the Universal Mini and Silverline, was nearly the same within a 10% range

at the orientation of 0 and 180 degrees.

Figure 4.1.2. Read Rate Scatterplot of All Tags by Orientation

4.1.3. Read Rate Scatterplot by Distance

The purpose of this ‘Distances Scatterplot” is to also give a general overview of

individual and comparative tag performance, in terms of “reading percentages,” at 5 different

distances from the reader. Distance of a tag from an antenna is another imperative factor that had

to be taken into consideration when discussing tag competency. How far could a tag be read? Is

the readability affected by an increase (or decrease) in distance from the RFID antenna? To test

this, 10 tags of each make were each tested 12 separate times at each of the 5 chosen interval

distances, and then averages were calculated. The graph’s data points represent each make of

tag’s average reading percentages at each of the 5 distances. This graph depicts 2 key things:

first, on average, how well each tag performed at the five tested distances (5, 10, 15, 20, & 25

feet) and second, how well the tags generally did compared to each other at these distances. The

17 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



trends between each data point of each tag show whether or not the average reading percentages

increased or decreased when the distance was altered. With this in mind, different comparisons

and interpretations of data can be easily read and understood. For example, according to the

graph, five out of the ten types of tags read above 90% at five feet. Also, it could be noticed that

for each tag, five feet was the distance that tested to have the highest average reading percentage.

Figure 4.1.3. Read Rate Scatterplot by Distance

4.1.4. Read Rate by Material

The third summary graph, Figure 4.1.4, is a representation of the % read of 10 different tags over

the 3 main surfaces: air, metal, & cardboard. The above values are an average of reading percentages

at each of the 5 tested distances and 4 orientations. We see that majority of the tags have a higher

average read rate percentage when read on a metal background. It is also clearly evident that DOT XS

tags were the exception to this trend. The Dot XS, as previously stated was not able to read above 2

Feet.

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Ave

rage

Re

ad R

ate

(P

erc

en

tage

s)

Distances (Feet)

Read Rate by Distances

Universal

Universal Mini

Universal Hard

Silverline

Sliverline Slim

Prox

IQ400

IQ600

Dot XS

Micro

18 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Figure 4.1.4. Read Rate Scatterplot by Distance

These four figures provide an overview of all the tag performances taken in this

benchmarking study. The important things to note from this section are that tags have different

strengths depending on the material, distance, and orientation. This being said, there does seem

to be an overall trend that multi-surface tags test better on metal than on any other substance. The

two notable exceptions to this rule are the silverline tags. There is also a general decrease in the

read rates as distance increases. There is also an exception to this rule. At 10 feet, tag read rates

seemt to decrease. This is because the Gen 2 protocol has some blind spots in its wave

propogation. This is a know issue, and effects all Gen 2 tags, so it should not be considered

significant to this study. The final summary point is that across the board, tags read best at 0

degrees, and then at 180 degrees. Tilting the tag at all can infer some technical difficulties.

4.2. Analysis of Benchmarking

The Summary section gave a general idea of what to expect when looking at the read rates of

Multi-Surface RFID tags. We saw the basic trends of the tags, and examined an RFID

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A I R M E T A L C A R D B O A R D

READ RATE BY MATERIAL Universal

Universal Mini

Universal Hard

Silver Line

Silver Line Slim

prox

IQ400

IQ 600

Dot XS

Micro

19 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



phenomenon. The next step in the analysis is to take a look a little bit deeper into the

benchmarking of these tags.

4.2.1. Decreasing Read Rates Over Distance

One of the main factors that we saw in decreasing read rates, was that as distance

increases, readability decreases. This means that when we go out to 25 feet, not many of the tags

read well. In fact, in Chart 4.2.1. we see the difference, in read rates of tags at 5ft and 25ft when

placed on metal.

Chart 4.2.1.a. Read Rates of Tags on Metal at 5ft and 25ft

When looking at this chart we see that the same tags are placed in the top 5, but not

necessarily in the same order. This is because the tags attenuate over distance, and some tags

attenuate faster than others. Another important note to make is that some tags scored over 100%

on average for their read rate, how is this possible? Since the read rate is a function of the

theoretical max intensity of the RF wave returning to the reader, it is possible that the wave be

stronger. This increased strength is most likely due to natural ambiant RF waves. The final thing

to point out on this graph is that several tags did not read on metal at 25 ft, and anotherr tag

barely read at all. Tags 505, 506, and 509 do not appear to be good tags for longer range RFID

systems.

The next table, Chart 4.2.1.b, shows the the average max distances to the nearest foot.

The tags in the table do not necessarily hold the same rank as of those in the readability charts

RANK TAG TYPE AVG RANK TAG TYPE AVG

1 508 111.75 1 510 86.15

2 510 107.1 2 501 81.35

3 503 103 3 503 78.8

4 507 102.1 4 508 73.25

5 501 101.15 5 507 50.5

6 502 101.15 6 502 47.3

7 504 95.4 7 504 2.15

8 505 81.1 8 505 0

9 506 80.05 9 506 0

10 509 0 10 509 0

METAL

25ft5 ft

20 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



because the readability charts only take into account data in the first 25ft, and this chart takes

into account data that goes up to almost 70 feet.

Chart 4.2.1.b. Average Max Distance by Per Tag

Judging by the data that is in the chart we can see that the tag that is best for use

in distance is RAID Tag 510, and the second best is RAID Tag 503. They are again both very

close, and we can see they are much better than the next in this class. 501 also shows a lot of

promise but doesn’t quite make the 25ft mark on all of it’s three categories.

To have a better idea of what kind of depreciation we see over distance, we need to

examine two separate things: Correlation Analysis and the Slope of the line over distance. The

first of these two things, will show us how correlated to distance the depreciation in read rate is.

We can find that in chart 4.2.1.c.

Chart 4.2.1.c. Correlation Coefficients

The numbers in the Chart 4.2.1.c. represent the correlation coefficients of the

depreciation in read rates over distance. These numbers represent how dependent the other

RAID ID Air Metal Cardboard

501 23ft 52ft 22ft

502 21ft 27ft 20ft

503 41ft 62ft 38ft

504 28ft 32ft 32ft

505 7ft 9ft 7ft

506 15ft 18ft 6ft

507 13ft 26ft 13ft

508 28ft 30ft 25ft

509 1ft 2ft 1ft

510 38ft 68ft 45ft

Average Max FT

To/From 5FT

5FT 1

10FT 0.727135

15FT 0.857618

20FT 0.765536

25FT 0.619915

21 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



distances are on the value of the read rate at 5ft. The expectation for this chart is that the bigger

the distance the less correlated, but as saw earlier, there is an anomoly at 10 feet. Other than that

the graph appears to be exponentially decaying.

The next chart will show us the slope of the line drawn between the read rates of tags

placed at 5,10, 15, 20, and 25 feet. This chart is important because it tells us how quickly the tags

lose their strength, or attenuate.

Chart 4.2.1.d The Slope of the Trend Over Distance By Tag

This chart shows the slope of the line, giving the trend of how tags act over distance. The

number in each box give the decrease in the read rate for each foot on average from 5 feet to 25

feet. This allows us to predict at any given point the theoretical value of read rate for any given

tag. This is an average for all orientations and all materials. That means that there will be some

error in our estimations, but it is a good place to start from.

The charts and figures above give as an accurate a picture as possible as to how any given

tag will act at any given time over distance. The next step is to an in-depth analysis of the

MetalCraft tags and how the performed.

4.3. In-Depth MetalCraft Tag Analysis

Three tables have been presented below. They are the summary tables for the scanning of

the RFID Universal Mini family. They a summary of the collected data on the three tags. The

data is broken down first by the tag tested, listed under the Tag type. It is then broken down by

the material it is placed on, then the orientation angle of the tag in reference to the reader, and

finally by the distance, which can be found on the left most collumn of each table.

In each cell of the table there is a percentage read, and that is the percent of the trials in

which a single tag was placed in view and identified. The total at the bottom of each column is

the percent chance that a tag will read a random distance equal to or less than 25 feet. The

cumulative total column on the right shows the percent chance that a tag will read on a random

material. Some tags read better than others, and there are some patterns in the data it is important

to point out.

Tags 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 510

Slopes -2.93 -2.65 -1.19 -3.75 -3.79 -2.44 -2.91 -2.47 -1.01

22 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Chart 4.3.1 shows the data summary for the Universal Asset Tag. The tag read 100% of

the time at 5 feet, regardless of orientation and distance. However, when the tags were placed at

25ft the read percentage dropped to 38%. The tags also read 98% of the time on metal regardless

of orientation. It read better on cardboard than on air, and the only time it didn’t read at all on

cardboard is at 25 feet at an orientation of 90 degrees to the antenna. The tags were hardest to

read at 90 degrees. This tag performed well over all, and it’s only area for improvement is at the

previously mentioned 90 degree orientation.

Chart 4.3.1 Metal Craft Universal Asset Tag Summary

Tag Type Metal Craft Universal RFID Asset Tag

Material Air Metal Cardboard

Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Cumu

%

5 Feet 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Feet 70% 100% 100% 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 60% 100% 100% 30% 81%

15 Feet 0% 0% 0% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 70% 90% 20% 100% 61%

20 Feet 30% 0% 0% 30% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 70% 40% 70% 61%

25 Feet 0% 0% 0% 10% 100% 100% 90% 100% 30% 10% 0% 20% 38%

Cumu. % 40% 40% 40% 40% 100% 100% 98% 100% 70% 74% 52% 64%

The second tag we tested was Metalcraft’s Universal Hard asset RFID tag, and it’s data

summary can be found in Chart 4.3.2.. This tag did not perform as highly as the Universal Asset,

but still performed well. At 5 feet it read 95% of the time, but only 23% of the time at 25 feet,

across all orientations and materials. This tag also performed decently in open air, well on

cardboard, and very well on metal. If the tag is placed at 0, 45, or 180 degrees and on metal it is

at least 84% likely to read. This further confirms the idea that Metalcraft tags work best on

metallic surfaces.

23 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Chart 4.3.2. Metal Craft Universal Hard Asset Tag Summary

Tag Type Metal Craft Universal Mini RFID Asset Tag


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Cumu

%

5 Feet 100% 100% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 95%

10 Feet 70% 30% 30% 0% 90% 60% 90% 60% 50% 40% 40% 10% 48%

15 Feet 80% 60% 10% 50% 100% 100% 40% 90% 70% 70% 0% 30% 58%

20 Feet 30% 10% 10% 0% 100% 90% 30% 100% 50% 30% 0% 0% 38%

25 Feet 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 70% 10% 80% 0% 0% 0% 20% 23%

Cumu. % 56% 40% 26% 26% 98% 84% 54% 86% 54% 48% 24% 32%

The third and final Metalcraft tag is the Universal Mini and it can be found in Chart 4.3.3.

This tag is off the charts in terms of performance. It either ties or out performs both of the other

tags in every category. There is no category that the tag reads at less than 92%. This tag reads so

well that even in open air at 90 degrees, and 25 feet it will read 90% of the time. This area has

typically been the most challenging for tags to perform well in. The exact max distance for this

tag hasn’t been determined yet, but it is greater than 35 feet. This is by far the most versitile of

all the investigated tags so far.

Chart 4.3.3 Metal Craft Universal Mini Asset Tag Summary

Tag Type Metal Craft Universal Hard RFID Asset Tag


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Cumu

%

5 Feet 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Feet 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 98%

15 Feet 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

20 Feet 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 97%

25 Feet 90% 60% 90% 100% 100% 100% 70% 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 92%

Cumu % 98% 92% 96% 100% 100% 98% 92% 100% 100% 98% 94% 100%

24 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



5. Conclusion and Future Work

When looking back over all the data, and see all the charts and graphs together, it is hard

to put together a specific ranking for all ten tags. The two top tags are easily the 503 and 510, but

after that the only thing that is clear is that the 509 appears to be the worst. There are a number of

things that could be said for the 501 and 502, but the most accurate is that they consistantly place

in the top 5 tags tested. There are several graphs that depict the strengths and weaknesses of each

of the tags. No tag scored 90% or higher for either readability or Precision, so there is room for

growth. However, some tags seem to place well on every metric given.

The benchmarking of these tags is comprehensive, and a significant number of additional

charts and graphs can be found in the appendix. That being said it is time to address what the

future steps of this process could look like.

The current setup for the experiment dealth with only a tag, at one angle to the antenna,

with only one antenna, and at a fixed height. This was done as a standard of tag testing protocol.

However, it does raise a few questions about what would happen if any of those parameters was

changed. Part of the reason that there is a drop off in read rate at 10 feet is because of a issue

with the Gen 2 standard, and that could be examined further if additional antennas were brought

into the setup. In addition to the extra antenna, anotherr study might be to look at the optimal

height of a tag, relative to the reader, or the best angle to place tags at to maximize the read rate.

This study also only takes into account the Multi-Surface RFID tags of a few companies.

These companies are the leaders in this field, but a more comprehensive benchmark against all

Gen 2 RFID tags could highly the strengths of the 501, 502, and 503.

25 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Bibliography Bower, Keith M. “Design of Experiments (DOE).” n.d. American Society for Quality.

<http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/data-collection-analysis-tools/overview/design-of-

experiments.html>.

Clampitt, Harold. The RFID Certification Textbook. 3rd. Arlington Heights: American RFID Solutions, 2007.

Jones, Erick C, et al. Tracked: What You Should Know about RFID, Big Data, The Internet of Things, and

Data Security. Arlington: PWD Group Press, 2015. Document.

Jones, Erick C. and Christopher A. Chung. “RFID in Logistics.” 2008.

The Government of Japan. “Act on the Protection of Personal Information (Act No. 57 of 2003).” 2005.

Cabinet Affairs Office of Cabinet Secretariat.

<http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data/APPI.pdf>.

26 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Index 1: RSSI Data Tables

Universal Asset Tag

Distance 5 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 -52 -53 -56 -55 -46 -47 -52 -49 -52 -53 -58 -53

Trial 2 -52 -53 -56 -55 -47 -48 -52 -49 -52 -54 -60 -55

Trial 3 -52 53 -57 -54 -47 -48 -52 -49 -52 -53 -60 -55

Trial 4 -52 -53 -56 -54 -47 -49 -53 -50 -52 -54 -60 -55

Trial 5 -52 -53 -56 -55 -46 -47 -52 -49 -52 -53 -60 -54

Trial 6 -52 -53 -59 -55 -48 -48 -52 -48 -52 -52 -55 -59

Trial 7 -52 -53 -57 -54 -56 -55 -50 -52 -52 -53 -59 -56

Trial 8 -52 -54 -59 -54 -47 -46 -52 -51 -52 -54 -56 -55

Trial 9 52 -64 -57 -63 -47 -47 -53 -50 -53 -52 -56 -55

Trial 10 -51 -53 -58 -55 -47 -47 -52 -50 -52 -52 -55 -54

Distance 10 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 -61 -62 -59 0 -53 -61 -53 -57 -62 -62 -60 0

Trial 2 -62 -66 -60 0 -53 -62 -53 -61 -60 -61 -61 -65

Trial 3 -61 -65 -58 0 -53 -62 -53 -57 -60 -62 -65 0

Trial 4 -64 -61 -59 0 -54 -64 -54 -59 -61 -61 -64 0

Trial 5 -64 -64 -59 0 -53 -63 -53 -59 -61 -62 -62 0

Trial 6 0 -58 -56 0 -56 -51 -51 -61 0 -58 -58 0

Trial 7 -64 -56 -55 0 -54 -50 -50 -59 0 -66 -56 0

Trial 8 0 -60 -57 0 -55 -50 -51 -58 0 -58 -56 0

Trial 9 -63 -58 -56 -67 -54 -51 -51 -57 0 -58 -57 -64

Trial 10 0 -58 -56 0 -56 -52 -50 -55 -62 -58 -57 -64

27 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Distance 15 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 0 0 0 -65 -50 -53 -57 -50 -62 62 0 -62

Trial 2 0 0 0 0 -51 -54 -50 -51 -61 -62 0 -61

Trial 3 0 0 0 0 -51 -52 -58 -52 -62 -62 0 -62

Trial 4 0 0 0 0 -51 -53 -59 -52 -61 -63 0 -61

Trial 5 0 0 0 0 -51 -52 -60 -51 -62 -65 0 -62

Trial 6 0 0 0 0 -51 -52 -59 -52 0 0 0 -61

Trial 7 0 0 0 -61 -51 -51 -59 -52 -66 -62 0 -59

Trial 8 0 0 0 -59 -52 -53 -56 -52 -62 -58 -60 -62

Trial 9 0 0 0 -62 -52 -53 -58 -52 0 -64 0 -58

Trial 10 0 0 0 -60 -52 -52 -59 -52 0 -61 -63 -60

Distance 20 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 0 0 0 0 -52 -55 -57 -54 -62 -63 -67 -60

Trial 2 0 0 0 0 -53 -56 -64 -54 -61 -63 -63 -60

Trial 3 0 0 0 0 -53 -57 -62 -55 -62 -63 0 -65

Trial 4 0 0 0 0 -55 -58 -64 -53 -63 0 0 -64

Trial 5 0 0 0 0 -54 -54 -65 -53 -65 0 0 0

Trial 6 0 0 0 0 -53 -55 -61 -56 0 0 0 0

Trial 7 -62 0 0 -60 -54 -53 -59 -56 -60 -60 -66 -65

Trial 8 -63 0 0 -63 -54 -55 -58 -56 -59 -59 -64 -66

Trial 9 0 0 0 0 -54 -54 -58 -56 -60 -60 0 -59

Trial 10 -61 0 0 -62 -53 -54 -59 -56 -59 -60 0 0

28 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Distance 25 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 0 0 0 0 -57 -57 -64 -55 0 0 0 -62

Trial 2 0 0 0 0 -57 -59 -66 -56 0 0 0 -65

Trial 3 0 0 0 0 -56 -58 -64 -56 0 0 0 0

Trial 4 0 0 0 0 -57 -62 -64 -55 0 0 0 0

Trial 5 0 0 0 0 -56 -59 -64 -56 0 0 0 0

Trial 6 0 0 0 0 -57 -57 0 -58 0 0 0 0

Trial 7 0 0 0 0 -55 -56 -63 -57 -63 0 0 0

Trial 8 0 0 0 0 -55 -57 -59 -56 -66 0 0 0

Trial 9 0 0 0 -65 -56 -56 -65 -58 -65 -62 0 0

Trial 10 0 0 0 0 -55 -55 -62 -58 0 0 0 0

29 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Universal Hard Asset Tag

Distance 5 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 -56 -58 -64 -64 -52 -54 -60 -56 -56 -61 -65 -65

Trial 2 -56 -57 0 0 -52 -53 -48 -55 -57 -58 0 -67

Trial 3 -58 -58 -65 -63 -53 -53 -58 -55 -57 -58 -65 -66

Trial 4 -58 -58 -63 -63 -52 -52 -58 -56 -56 -58 -65 -65

Trial 5 -56 -58 -64 -65 -52 -53 -59 -55 -58 -57 -65 -64

Trial 6 -57 -58 -65 -64 -52 -53 -57 -55 -56 -58 0 -63

Trial 7 -59 -58 0 0 -53 -53 -53 -56 -57 -59 -65 -65

Trial 8 -58 -59 -67 -64 -52 -52 -58 -56 -57 -58 -65 -61

Trial 9 -58 -59 -53 -61 -52 -52 -56 -57 -56 -58 -66 -60

Trial 10 -57 -58 -67 -64 -52 -53 -57 -56 -56 -59 -64 -61

Distance 10 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 -69 0 0 0 -62 0 -59 -65 -67 0 0 0

Trial 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trial 3 -68 0 0 0 -62 0 -61 -66 -67 0 0 0

Trial 4 -68 0 0 0 -59 -67 -61 -64 0 0 0 0

Trial 5 -67 0 0 0 -63 0 -59 0 0 0 0 0

Trial 6 0 0 0 0 -63 -56 -58 0 0 -64 -63 0

Trial 7 0 0 0 0 -65 -57 -56 0 0 0 0 0

Trial 8 -68 -63 -64 0 -65 -55 -56 -66 -69 -66 -66 0

Trial 9 -69 -68 -63 0 -64 -56 -56 -65 -69 -63 -62 -69

Trial 10 -67 -63 -64 0 -63 -57 -57 -66 -64 -62 -66 0

30 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Distance 15 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 -66 -67 0 -68 -55 -59 0 -58 -64 -66 0 0

Trial 2 0 0 0 0 -57 -62 0 -58 0 0 0 0

Trial 3 -66 -65 0 0 -56 -58 0 -57 -64 -69 0 0

Trial 4 -65 -64 -69 -68 -57 -58 0 -57 -64 -66 0 0

Trial 5 -65 -68 0 0 -56 -60 0 -59 -65 0 0 0

Trial 6 -69 0 0 0 -56 -56 0 -59 0 -65 0 0

Trial 7 0 0 0 0 -65 -57 -56 0 0 0 0 0

Trial 8 -66 -68 0 -67 -56 -56 -65 -59 -67 -66 0 -67

Trial 9 -62 0 0 -69 -57 -56 -65 -59 -64 -67 0 -66

Trial 10 -66 -68 0 -65 -56 -57 -66 -60 -63 -68 0 -68

Distance 20 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 -69 0 -68 0 -59 -63 0 -64 -66 0 0 0

Trial 2 0 0 0 0 -62 0 0 -64 0 0 0 0

Trial 3 0 0 0 0 -63 -64 0 -63 -66 0 0 0

Trial 4 0 0 0 0 -61 -63 0 -62 0 0 0 0

Trial 5 0 0 0 0 -62 -63 0 -62 -66 -67 0 0

Trial 6 0 0 0 0 -61 -62 0 -63 0 0 0 0

Trial 7 0 0 0 0 -57 -56 0 -58 0 0 0 0

Trial 8 -69 -68 0 0 -61 -57 -66 -63 -68 -69 0 0

Trial 9 -66 0 0 0 -62 -61 -66 -64 -67 -69 0 0

Trial 10 0 0 0 0 -62 -59 -66 -63 0 0 0 0

31 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Distance 25 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 0 0 0 0 -63 -64 0 -65 0 0 0 0

Trial 2 0 0 0 0 -64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trial 3 0 0 0 0 -63 -64 0 -59 0 0 0 0

Trial 4 0 0 0 0 -63 -64 0 -59 0 0 0 0

Trial 5 0 0 0 0 -63 -64 0 -59 0 0 0 0

Trial 6 0 0 0 0 -64 0 0 -64 0 0 0 0

Trial 7 0 0 0 0 -64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trial 8 0 0 0 0 -63 -65 0 -64 0 0 0 -69

Trial 9 0 0 0 0 -64 -65 0 -65 0 0 0 0

Trial 10 0 0 0 0 -65 -67 -66 -64 0 0 0 -69

32 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Universal Mini Asset Tag

Distance 5 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 -50 -51 -54 -52 -47 -50 -50 -49 -50 -52 -54 -53

Trial 2 -50 -51 -54 -52 -46 -48 -52 -49 -50 -51 -54 -53

Trial 3 -50 -51 -54 -53 -46 -48 -50 -48 -50 -51 -54 -53

Trial 4 -49 -50 -54 -54 -46 -48 -51 -48 -51 -52 -55 -54

Trial 5 -49 -51 -54 -54 -46 -48 -51 -49 -51 -52 -55 -54

Trial 6 -50 -51 -55 -52 -46 -46 -51 -49 -51 -51 -56 -54

Trial 7 -50 -52 -54 -54 -47 -47 -52 -49 -51 -52 -57 -54

Trial 8 -50 -51 -54 -53 -46 -47 -52 -49 -51 -53 -56 -53

Trial 9 -50 -51 -55 -52 -47 -46 -54 -48 -53 -53 -54 -56

Trial 10 -49 -51 -54 -54 -46 -47 -52 -49 -51 -53 -55 -54

Distance 10 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 -57 -58 -56 -62 -55 -57 -52 -59 -56 61 -59 -56

Trial 2 -56 -57 -55 -61 -56 -55 -52 -58 -57 -60 59 -59

Trial 3 -56 -58 -54 -61 -55 -56 -52 -54 -57 -61 -58 -62

Trial 4 -56 -60 -55 -62 -56 -56 -52 -55 -57 -61 -56 -62

Trial 5 -57 -60 -57 -62 -55 0 -52 -57 -56 0 -60 -58

Trial 6 -57 -56 -54 -59 -55 -50 -49 -55 -57 -54 -56 -57

Trial 7 -59 -56 -56 -62 -56 -51 -50 -57 -62 -57 -57 -61

Trial 8 -58 -56 -59 -62 -57 -51 -51 -57 -59 -55 -56 -64

Trial 9 -57 -54 -55 -61 -54 -51 -50 -57 -58 -57 -55 -62

Trial 10 -57 -55 -54 -61 -54 -50 -50 -56 -59 -57 -57 -64

33 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Distance 15 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 -54 -54 -60 -54 -53 -57 -59 -51 -54 -58 -62 -56

Trial 2 -53 -55 -59 -54 -51 -55 -59 -51 -55 -57 -63 -56

Trial 3 -53 -55 -61 -55 -51 -54 -57 -52 -54 -56 -61 -55

Trial 4 -53 -57 -62 -54 -51 -55 -59 -52 -55 -57 -64 -55

Trial 5 -53 -57 -58 -54 -51 -51 -61 51 -54 55 -59 -56

Trial 6 -55 -57 -59 -56 -51 -50 -56 -53 -54 -56 -63 -55

Trial 7 -53 -57 -59 -56 -51 -51 -58 -52 -56 -55 -66 -58

Trial 8 -55 -56 -61 -56 -52 -50 -57 -51 -58 -57 -63 -58

Trial 9 -54 -56 -59 -56 -51 -51 -57 -52 -58 -57 -61 -57

Trial 10 -54 -55 -61 -55 -51 -52 -59 -52 -56 -58 -60 -59

Distance 20 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 -59 -62 -64 -57 -53 -59 0 -53 -57 -61 -64 -60

Trial 2 -58 -60 -63 -57 -51 -55 -64 -54 -56 -61 -63 -62

Trial 3 -60 -61 -63 -58 -52 -57 -64 -54 -59 -62 0 -59

Trial 4 -58 -61 -64 -58 -53 -56 -65 -54 -60 63 -64 -62

Trial 5 -58 -60 0 -58 -53 -55 -62 -55 -62 -62 0 -62

Trial 6 -60 -61 -62 -62 -54 -53 -58 -56 -61 -62 -63 -64

Trial 7 -58 -61 -63 -62 -53 -54 -57 -57 -59 -60 -60 -60

Trial 8 -60 -62 -62 -60 -53 -54 -61 -56 -59 -68 -65 -61

Trial 9 -61 -62 -62 -62 -54 -54 -60 -55 -59 -67 -65 -61

Trial 10 -58 -58 -62 -60 -53 -58 -61 -56 -58 -58 -63 -59

34 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Distance 25 FT


Orientation 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180 0 45 90 180

Trial 1 -63 -65 0 -58 -54 -56 0 -54 -63 -63 0 -59

Trial 2 -64 -64 -65 -58 -56 -56 0 -56 -63 -61 -65 -62

Trial 3 -64 -64 -66 -61 -56 -56 -65 -55 -63 -63 -65 -61

Trial 4 -63 -67 -67 -61 -55 -56 -65 -55 -63 -64 -65 -62

Trial 5 0 -61 0 -60 -54 -56 -63 -55 -64 -64 -64 -59

Trial 6 -64 -65 -62 -58 -56 -57 0 -57 -64 -64 -63 -62

Trial 7 -65 0 -64 -58 -55 -58 -65 -55 -59 -62 -63 -60

Trial 8 -65 0 -64 -60 -54 -55 -68 -56 -60 -61 -61 -61

Trial 9 -64 0 -63 -60 -55 -58 -65 -56 -62 -64 -62 -60

Trial 10 -64 0 -63 -61 -54 -57 -64 -56 -61 -65 -61 -60

35 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Index 2: Tag Descriptions

1) UNIVERSAL MINI RFID ASSET TAG

http://www.idplate.com/product/94/rfid-tags-rfid-labels-and-asset-tags

APPLICATIONS

Fixed asset tracking

Mobile asset tracking

MATERIALS

Material: .002" thick polyester

Affixing Methods: Permanent pressure-sensitive adhesive

Environment: Mild and moderate. Resists moderate solvents and caustics/acids.

Numbering Options: Copy only, serialized/un serialized numbers and bar code with

human readable numbers (RFID programming included)

Production Time: 20 work days

Standard Size: 2 3/4" x 3/4"

RFID Specs: Passive UHF

http://www.idplate.com/product/94/rfid-tags-rfid-labels-and-asset-tags

36 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



2) UNIVERSAL RFID ASSET TAG

http://www.idplate.com/product/universal-rfid-asset-tags-and-labels/rfid-tags-rfid-labels-and-asset-tags

APPLICATIONS

Fixed asset tracking

Mobile asset tracking

MATERIALS

Material: .002" thick polyester; .085" total product thickness

Affixing Methods: Permanent pressure-sensitive adhesive

Environment: Mild and moderate. Resists moderate solvents and caustics/acids.

Numbering Options: Copy only, serialized/un serialized numbers and bar code with

human readable numbers (RFID programming included)

Production Time: 15 work days

Standard Size: 2 7/8" x 1 3/8"

RFID Specs: Passive UHF.

http://www.idplate.com/product/universal-rfid-asset-tags-and-labels/rfid-tags-rfid-labels-and-asset-tags

37 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



3) UNIVERSAL RFID HARD TAGS

http://www.idplate.com/product/universal-rfid-hard-tags-and-labels/rfid-tags-rfid-labels-and-asset-tags

APPLICATIONS

Asset Tracking

MATERIALS

Material: .002" thick polyester; .20" total product thickness Affixing Method: Mechanical fasteners (standard) and/or permanent pressure sensitive

adhesive (optional) Environment: Moderate and extreme. Resists extreme impact and UV exposure. Moderate

caustics/acids. Numbering Options: Copy only, serialized/un serialized numbers and bar code with human

readable numbers (RFID programming included) Production Time: 15 work days Standard Size: 4 1/8" x 1 3/4" RFID Specs: Passive UHF

http://www.idplate.com/product/universal-rfid-hard-tags-and-labels/rfid-tags-rfid-labels-and-asset-tags

38 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



4) Confidex Silverline™

http://www.confidex.com/products/smart-identification/confidex-silverline

Background

Confidex Silverline™ is the first all surface label family designed specifically to be compatible

with Zebra RFID printers. The unique design of the Silverline family provides industry-leading

on-metal sensitivity, along with highly accurate encoding and print quality on ZT400, R110Xi4,

and RZ series RFID printers. In particular, the new Silverline Slim and Micro labels offer new

solutions for space constrained applications", stated Michael Fein, Sr. Product Manager, Zebra

Technologies.

Applications Manufacturing

Automotive

Logistics And RTI Operation

Healthcare

Product Information Product Category: Label

Technology: UHF (C1G2)

Type: ETSI FCC

Size: 100 x 40 x 0.8 mm

3, 94 x 1, 57 x 0, 03 In: Memory

128 bit EPC + 512 bit


Read range up to 5 m to16 ft.

Temperature:-35 °C to +85 °C, -31 °F to +185 °F

IP class: IP68

http://www.confidex.com/products/smart-identification/confidex-silverline

39 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



5) Confidex Silver line Slim™

http://www.confidex.com/products/smart-identification/confidex-silverline-slim

Applications

Manufacturing Automotive ICT And Electronics Construction And Mining Logistics And RTI Operation Healthcare

Product Information

Product Category: Label

Technology: UHF (C1G2)

Type: ETSI FCC

Size: 110 x 13 x 0, 8 mm

4, 33 x 0, 51 x 0, 03 in

Memory: 128 bit EPC + 512 bit


Read range: up to 4 m to13 ft.

Temperature:-35 °C to +85 °C, -31 °F to +185 °F

IP class: IP68

http://www.confidex.com/products/smart-identification/confidex-silverline-slim

40 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



6) Omni-ID Prox® label

http://www.omni-id.com/industrial-rfid-tags/

Background Omni-ID Prox label offers the smallest form factor, material agnostic, RFID tag on the market. Provided as

a regionally-tuned tag, or broadband, globally compliant tag, Omni-ID Prox label forms an excellent

platform for an easy to deploy, hassle free IT asset management solution. Supplied with a synthetic label

finish, Omni-ID Prox label is knock and splash resistant and suitable for

Long term use in office environment.

Product Information Protocol: EPC Class 1 Gen2

Frequency Range (MHz):902–928 (US), 866–868 (EU),860–960 (global)

Read Range (Fixed reader) Up to 3.0 (US), Up to 2.0 (EU) Up to 2.5 (GS)

Read Range (Handheld reader)

Up to 1.5 (US), Up to 1.2 (EU) Up to 1.3 (GS)

Material Compatibility

Metal and non-metallic substrates IC Type (chip) Alien H3 Memory. EPC - 96bits. User - 512bits. TID - 64bits.

http://www.omni-id.com/industrial-rfid-tags/

41 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



7) Omni-ID® IQ 400

https://www.omni-id.com/pdfs/Omni-ID_IQ_400_datasheet.pdf

Background

Omni-ID IQ 400 Ultrathin labels provide on metal tag functionality, within a low profile, easy to deploy

label. Supplied in roll form as either finished labels or as an inlay for conversion, the Omni-ID IQ 400 has

been optimized for thermal barcode printers, enabling low cost and hassle-free RFID deployment. IQ 400 has

redefined the standard for both consistency and reliability for metal and liquid RFID tagging, enabling new

applications and revolutionizing integration into manufacturing and supply chain processes.

Product Information

Protocol: EPC Class 1 Gen2

Frequency Range (MHz):866-868 (EU)

902-928 (US)

Read Range

(Fixed reader) Up to 4.0m (13.1ft)

Read Range (Handheld reader) Up to 2.0m (6.5 ft.)

Material Compatibility

Optimized for metal and liquid

IC Type (chip): Impinj Monza 4QT

Memory :User - 512bits

Encasement-Synthetic Label

Size (mm):103.0 x 28.0 x 0.8

(tolerance) :( +/- 0.5)

Size (in): 4.1 x 1.1 x 0.03

(tolerance) :( +/-0.02)

Weight (g):2.8


42 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



8) Omni-ID® IQ 600


Background

Omni-ID IQ 600 Ultrathin labels provide on metal tag functionality, within a low profile, easy to deploy

label. Supplied in roll form as either finished labels or as an inlay for conversion, the Omni-ID IQ 600 has

been optimized for thermal barcode printers, enabling low cost and hassle-free RFID deployment. IQ 600's

consistency and reliability redefine the standard for metal and liquid RFID tagging, enabling new

applications and revolutionizing integration into

Manufacturing and supply chain processes.

Product Information Protocol: EPC Class 1 Gen2 Frequency Range (MHz):866-868 (EU), 902-928 (US)

Read Range

(Fixed reader): Up to 6.0m (19.7 ft.)

Read Range (Handheld reader): Up to 3.0m (9.8 ft.)

Material Compatibility: Optimized for metal and liquid

IC Type (chip): Impinj Monza 4QT

Memory: User - 512bits

Encasement Synthetic: Label

Size (mm):103.0 x 52.0 x 0.8

(Tolerance): (+/- 0.5)

Size (in):4.1 x 2.0 x 0.03

(Tolerance): (+/-0.02)

Weight (g):5.02


43 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



9) Dot XS Xerify

http://www.xerafy.com/en/catalogue/product/dot-on-xs/26

Background

The Dot-On XS can be mounted on metal and will withstand high temperature. It is ATEX certified, and is

an ideal solution for tracking small assets. The Dot-On XS is round and measures at 0.24 inches in diameter

by 0.1 inches thick with a read distance of 5 feet (1.5 m). It is designed to survive industrial chemical washes

that normally complicate the application of RFID devices.

Specialities Can be mounted on metal

Withstands high temperature

ATEX certified

Applications Tool tracking

Source tagging

Small asset tracking

Weapon tracking

Operating temperature:-40℉ to +185℉ (-40℃ to +85℃)

Dimensions/tolerance (in): ø 0.24 x 0.1 (+/- 0.008)

Dimensions/tolerance (mm): ø 6 x 2.5 (+/- 0.2)

Attachment: Epoxy

Read range on metal : Up to 5 ft. (1.5 m)

Weight 0.012 oz.: (0.34 g)

IP rating: IP68 Application temperature:-40℉ to +302℉ (-40℃ to +150℃) P/N

US: X4102-US000-H3 EU: X4102-EU000-H3

http://www.xerafy.com/en/catalogue/product/dot-on-xs/26

44 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



10) Micro X II

http://www.xerafy.com/userfiles/uploads/datasheets/Micro%20X%20II%20Datasheet.pdf

Product Information

Functional Specifications RF air protocol EPC Class 1 Gen 2; ISO18000-6C Operating frequency: UHF 902-928 MHz (US); 866-868 MHz (EU) IC type: Alien Higgs-3 Memory configuration: 96-bit EPC; 512-bit user memory; 64-bit TID Functionality: Read / write (user programmed) Memory – expected read / write cycles: 100,000 cycles at 77°F (25°C) Data retention Up to 50 years Read rate: 400 tags per second for 96-EPC bit number Warranty (limited):1 year

http://www.xerafy.com/userfiles/uploads/datasheets/Micro%20X%20II%20Datasheet.pdf

45 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



Index 3: Additional Charts and Figures

46 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510

RSS

I (%

)

Tags

RSSI strength of tags at 15ft

Air Metal Cardboard

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tag1 Tag2 Tag3 Tag4 Tag5 Tag6 Tag7 Tag8 Tag9 Tag10

RSS

I(%

)

Tags

RSSI strength of tags at 25ft

Air Metal Cardboard

47 | P a g e


Benchmarking Report



university of texas in arlingtonuniversalrfid.commercev3.com/downloads/metalcraft-rfid...3 | p a g e...

Documents