RFID JOURNAL
Text size:
T
T
T
UHF EPC Tag Performance Evaluation
The second report by the RFID Alliance Lab reveals the truth behind vendor claims about tag performance.
RFID tag performance matters. Whether you’re trying to meet mandates or considering RFID for internal operations, the ability to read tags is the foundation of any RFID-enabled system. In this report, UHF EPC Tag Performance Evaluation, the RFID Alliance Lab examines a number of aspects of tag performance, including yield (what fraction of tags that you receive will actually work), and variance (the difference in the performance among tags of the same model). It measured how quickly tags can be read, both in isolation and when other tags are present, and report extensively on the results.
Some vendors claim their tags can be read at a rate of 1,000 per second. While this might be theoretically possible, the RFID Alliance Lab performed more than 10 million read attempts on nine different commercially available models and found that some could be read at a rate of less than 10 per second. This report gets behind the advertising hype and reveals the performance end users can expect.
These tests are thorough, scientific, and repeatable. They should take much of the hype out of advertisements and give users sound information on which to base tag purchase decisions. The Lab tested nine commercially available RFID tags based on EPCglobal's Class 0 and Class 1 Electronic Product Code specifications:
• Alien Squiggle,
• Alien I2
• Alien M tag
• Avery Dennison DS1
• Avery Dennison Triflex
• Symbol I2010
• Symbol X2040
• Symbol I1030
• Rafsec 457
Due to the intense interest in using RFID for pharmaceutical applications, researchers at the lab chose to replace the discontinued Rafsec 458 with the Symbol I1030 tag. Avery Dennison, Alien, and Rafsec offer similar item level or pharmaceutical tags, but they were either not released or not available in sufficient quantities to be included in this report.
One unfortunate but real fact about RFID tags is that the quality of tags is currently not consistent, and therefore performance is not consistent. There are considerable variations in performance from one tag to the next, even among tags of the same manufacturer and model. Some models of tags show more variation than others. To measure variation in tag performance, tThe Lab performed tests including nearly 1 million read attempts more than 1,000 tags of the nine models and recorded nearly 15,000 data points.
Download the Introduction and Table of Contents.
Dead Tags and Quiet Tags
Researchers tracked how many tags in a given population were “dead” and how many were “quiet.” A quiet tag is one that is readable, but only at very short distances.
Performance of a Typical Tag
Researchers looked at the variation of performance among tags of the same model and found the average for that model. The Lab characterized the percentage of reads versus read distance. This extends results from of the first lab report, Analysis of the Performance of Commercially Available EPC Tags, in a number of ways. First, the results are based on the performance of a “typical” tag from each model. Second, performance characterized with greater accuracy (over one million read attempts were used for each tag model). Third, the Lab used the same RFID reader and configuration for all models, so direct comparisons can be made among all nine tag models.
Read Rates
The Lab measured read rates for tags in isolation for all nine EPC tags. It also tested read rates in a population of more than 100 Class 0 tags (Avery DS1) and more than 100 Class 1 (Alien I2) tags. And it tested a smaller population of 48 Symbol I1030 tags on a case of pharmaceutical products (placebo). The report shows drastic differences in read rates between Class 0 and Class 1 tags, and explains why some claims about read rates made by vendors are misleading.
Forward and Reverse Channel
Section 7 of the report explains how the “forward channel” and “reverse channel” impacts performance (the terms are explained in easy-to-understand terms). The results of these extensive tests show that given modern hardware, there is probably little disadvantage to using a “monostatic” antenna system and gives insight into how to best use a “bistatic” antenna system (these terms are also explained).
The results of the RIFD Alliance Lab's extensive testing indicates sharp distinctions between performances of different tags. The results are immediately useful for end user companies choosing what tags are best for their applications. The report provides insights and useful observations that will save you time, money and frustration.
Purchase Report 2: UHF EPC Tag Performance Evaluation
Purchase a one-year subscription.
Learn more about the RFID Alliance Lab.
Download the Introduction and Table of Contents.
Some vendors claim their tags can be read at a rate of 1,000 per second. While this might be theoretically possible, the RFID Alliance Lab performed more than 10 million read attempts on nine different commercially available models and found that some could be read at a rate of less than 10 per second. This report gets behind the advertising hype and reveals the performance end users can expect.
|
These tests are thorough, scientific, and repeatable. They should take much of the hype out of advertisements and give users sound information on which to base tag purchase decisions. The Lab tested nine commercially available RFID tags based on EPCglobal's Class 0 and Class 1 Electronic Product Code specifications:
• Alien Squiggle,
• Alien I2
• Alien M tag
• Avery Dennison DS1
• Avery Dennison Triflex
• Symbol I2010
• Symbol X2040
• Symbol I1030
• Rafsec 457
Due to the intense interest in using RFID for pharmaceutical applications, researchers at the lab chose to replace the discontinued Rafsec 458 with the Symbol I1030 tag. Avery Dennison, Alien, and Rafsec offer similar item level or pharmaceutical tags, but they were either not released or not available in sufficient quantities to be included in this report.
One unfortunate but real fact about RFID tags is that the quality of tags is currently not consistent, and therefore performance is not consistent. There are considerable variations in performance from one tag to the next, even among tags of the same manufacturer and model. Some models of tags show more variation than others. To measure variation in tag performance, tThe Lab performed tests including nearly 1 million read attempts more than 1,000 tags of the nine models and recorded nearly 15,000 data points.
Download the Introduction and Table of Contents.
Dead Tags and Quiet Tags
Researchers tracked how many tags in a given population were “dead” and how many were “quiet.” A quiet tag is one that is readable, but only at very short distances.
Performance of a Typical Tag
Researchers looked at the variation of performance among tags of the same model and found the average for that model. The Lab characterized the percentage of reads versus read distance. This extends results from of the first lab report, Analysis of the Performance of Commercially Available EPC Tags, in a number of ways. First, the results are based on the performance of a “typical” tag from each model. Second, performance characterized with greater accuracy (over one million read attempts were used for each tag model). Third, the Lab used the same RFID reader and configuration for all models, so direct comparisons can be made among all nine tag models.
|
Read Rates
The Lab measured read rates for tags in isolation for all nine EPC tags. It also tested read rates in a population of more than 100 Class 0 tags (Avery DS1) and more than 100 Class 1 (Alien I2) tags. And it tested a smaller population of 48 Symbol I1030 tags on a case of pharmaceutical products (placebo). The report shows drastic differences in read rates between Class 0 and Class 1 tags, and explains why some claims about read rates made by vendors are misleading.
Forward and Reverse Channel
Section 7 of the report explains how the “forward channel” and “reverse channel” impacts performance (the terms are explained in easy-to-understand terms). The results of these extensive tests show that given modern hardware, there is probably little disadvantage to using a “monostatic” antenna system and gives insight into how to best use a “bistatic” antenna system (these terms are also explained).
|
The results of the RIFD Alliance Lab's extensive testing indicates sharp distinctions between performances of different tags. The results are immediately useful for end user companies choosing what tags are best for their applications. The report provides insights and useful observations that will save you time, money and frustration.
Purchase Report 2: UHF EPC Tag Performance Evaluation
Purchase a one-year subscription.
Learn more about the RFID Alliance Lab.
Download the Introduction and Table of Contents.
