‘ n , o ...u _:, ‘ A. u'quljw‘Ku . . In“ . ‘ ' .. - . ,,¢ ‘ . . K , "A _- .....‘.. . . ‘ angula- O'I'MI .I’ .c.|‘,u-, ' “.l‘u.‘ n .n.‘ Ll THESIS (:23 33??? 3 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF TAG ORIENTATION AND PACKAGE CONTENT ON THE READABILITY OF RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION (RFID) TRANSPONDERS presented by Jeffrey Robert Tazelaar has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the MS. degree in Packaging Kafka KMC ‘) Major Piofes/or's Signature 4% 16, JCDCD f‘ Date MSU is an Allinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution . ‘- .' ‘ "~ — —- A-‘___r*_.‘_lg _ LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE I536} 3 :9 2005 DEC 0‘ 7 2005 49%“ .__——— — - ——+——-———--— —----—- 6/01 cJCIRCJDateDue.p65-p.15 THE EFW‘I l READ-\B.’ THE EFFECT OF TAG ORIENTATION AND PACKAGE CONTENT ON THE READABILITY OF RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION (RFID) TRANSPONDERS By Jeffrey Robert Tazelaar A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Packaging 2004 THE EFFI Radio automatic ids! chain manage packaged goo. 9155le RFII Magemem I The Oh rag Orientation driven throng] Digs Ullllzing 5‘ and (1%an This res ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF TAG ORIENTATION AND PACKAGE CONTENT ON THE READABILITY OF RADIO FREQEUNCY IDENTIFICATION (RF ID) TRANSPONDERS By Jeffrey Robert Tazelaar Radio frequency identification (RF ID) is a rapidly expanding area in the field of automatic identification and data collection, with the potential to revolutionize supply chain management. With several large retailers, government agencies and consumer packaged goods manufacturers implementing, recommending and mandating the use of 915MHz RFID systems, the technology is rapidly expanding as a supply chain management tool. The objective of this research was to determine the effect different products and tag orientations have on the readability of RFID transponders in a pallet load, when driven through a portal set up. Cases were tagged with Matrics 915MHz Class 0 RFID tags utilizing several different orientations (tags facing inward, outward, forward, upward and downward) and products (foam, rice, empty bottles and water filled bottles). This research found that orientation and product type have a significant effect on tag readability. Granular and water-based products have a negative effect on tag readability. Tags oriented facing inward and downward had the highest number of no- reads across all product types; these orientations having no tags in the direct line-of-sight to the system antennae. The tier, column and/or row of the tagged cases also had an effect on tag readability. Tags were evaluated based on both the percentage of total reads and the number of trials having 100% pallet reads. Cepyfight by JEFFREY ROBERT TAZELAAR 2004 would School of?“k also like to [M his sum“ and for getting me 3 education. I wuld I group: JOIL Milt: encouragement a Building. luould li continued supptm Thank you and always gii i n g lhl‘OUghOUI and allt ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee: Dr. Robb Clarke and Dr. Diana Twede of the School of Packaging, and Dr. Ken Boyer of the Eli Broad College of Business. I would also like to thank Dr. Dennis Gilliland of the Department of Statistics and Probability for his support and contributions to this research. I would especially like to thank Dr. Clarke for getting me actively involved in the field of RF ID and encouraging me to continue my education. I would like to thank those students involved in my research especially the RF ID group: Ion, Mike, Farren, Krittika, Nick, TJ, and Stacie. Thank you all for your support, encouragement and friendship; you made it easy to spend so much time in the Packaging Building. I would like to thank Matrics, Incorporated for donating the RFID system and the continued support you provide to the MSU AutoID Lab. Thank you to all of the professors in the School of Packaging for encouraging me and always giving me support when needed. Thank you to Dr. Singh for the advice throughout and allowing me to use the required equipment. And lastly, I would like to give a special thank you to my family and friends outside of school for your support and patience. Especially to Ashley Miller, for always being there to listen and encourage me on. Thanks Mom and Dad for your support throughout. LIST OF TABII ‘ LIST OF FIGI'RI KEY TO ABBRU CHIPTER I - l.\' I CHAPTER 2 - LI: AIDC ICCIIIIU‘It. Barcodes .......... Barred: Stand.- RHD SW) C RFID Standard RFID Con ...... RI ID lndustrx TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... xv CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 4 AIDC Technologies Overview ....................................................................................... 4 Barcodes .......................................................................................................................... 5 Barcode Standards .......................................................................................................... 6 RF ID Supply Chain Impacts ........................................................................................... 7 RFID Standards ............................................................................................................... 9 RF ID Cost ..................................................................................................................... 10 RFID Industry Drivers .................................................................................................. 11 Wal-Mart ................................................................................................................... 12 US. Department of Defense (DOD) ......................................................................... 13 Other Retailers .......................................................................................................... 13 US. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) ................................................................ 15 RFID Technology Overview ......................................................................................... 16 Frequency Allocation ................................................................................................ 18 Transponder Power Source ....................................................................................... l9 Transponder Memory Capabilities ........................................................................... 19 Interrogators .............................................................................................................. 20 Antennae ................................................................................................................... 20 Host Computer .......................................................................................................... 21 Electronic Product Code (EPC) ................................................................................ 22 RF ID Tag Orientation Problems ................................................................................... 25 RF Interference Issues ................................................................................................... 26 Alien Study ................................................................................................................... 29 Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 3 1 CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 32 RFID Equipment Used .................................................................................................. 32 Procedure for Orientation and Product Effect on Tag Readability ............................... 33 CHAPTER I - K‘ Read Range .\l.. Proiuct 8; one- Pazlage for Tag Onenuz. Paclage C or.’ Tag Onentat; CHAPTER 5 - CU Statistical Anal} Package Content Tag Orientation . CHIPTER 6 - 08> Case Lecithin... CINTER 7 . 1_1_\ CIIiI’HER 8 - Fl" CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS ................................................................................................. 43 Read Range Mapping Results ....................................................................................... 43 Product & Orientation Effect on RF ID Tag Readability .............................................. 47 Package Content — Total Reads ................................................................................ 47 Tag Orientation — Total Reads .................................................................................. 47 Package Content - Trials with 100% Reads ............................................................. 50 Tag Orientation — Trials with 100% Reads ............................................................... 51 CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 130 Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................................... 13 1 Package Content .......................................................................................................... 135 Tag Orientation ........................................................................................................... 135 CHAPTER 6 - OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................. 137 Case Location .............................................................................................................. 137 CHAPTER 7 — LIMITING FACTORS FOR THIS REASEARCH ............................... 139 CHAPTER 8 - FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 142 APPENDIX 1 - PROCEDURE FOR MAPPING THE READ RANGE ....................... 144 APPENDIX 2 — STATISTICAL CONTROL CHARTS ................................................ 148 APPENDIX 3 - STATISTICAL INTERVAL PLOTS .................................................. 160 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 163 vi TABLE I: EPC Vi- ltBtE 2: Snow TA LE3ZSL\l\lkT-" tau: 4: 5mm: ItBLE 5: Sum-II- LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: EPC VERSION 1 BREAKDOWN ............................................................................ 24 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF TAG ORIENTATIONS EFFECT ON READABILITY ............................ 53 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF PRODUCT EFFECT ON TAG READABILITY ..................................... 54 TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF TOTAL TAG READ RATES WITH STANDARD ERROR ...................... 134 TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF TOTAL 100% TRIAL READ RATES WITH STANDARD ERROR ......... 134 vii lmates in his '21; —‘——'—-——' ham 1: RTIDS FIGURE 1: SI w.) FIGLRE Billnmt‘ \ TIC-L1H: INTERR . TEGLRE 5: TAG O\ TIGLRE 6: TAG ox . FORE 7.: PALLET i Ham 8: PALLET J TIGERS 9: Tics F A TIGLRE101TAGSI FIG-LITE “lacs 1' BORE ll: TACST FIGLRE 131TAGS I Home 14:31pm IIGLRE IS: Tow. 50m: 16; Tow. TIGLRE 17: RICE r HOWE 13: RICE J Witt l9: EVPT TIGL’RE :0 PET E FIGL'RE 21; Ft”... FIGIRE 32: 3D Pu.- TIGT‘RE 23: 1]) pl, KORE :4: 3D P: TIGL‘RE 35: ”D _ ” t F: -— P .GLRE 26' ID PI FIGURE 37: 31) Pt mm: -E\tPl :lGLRE :9. EVPT :GL'RE 30. EMF] FIGI'RE 1 LIST OF FIGURES Images in this thesis are presented in color. FIGURE 1: RFID SYSTEM COMPONENTS ............................................................................ 17 FIGURE 2: STANDARD 96-BIT EPC CODE (MIT 2002) ....................................................... 23 FIGURE 3:MATRICS FOUR ANTENNAE PORTAL SET-UP ...................................................... 33 FIGURE 4: INTERROGATOR LOCATION ................................................................................ 33 FIGURE 5: TAG ON SIDE OF CASE ........................................................................................ 34 FIGURE 6: TAG ON TOP OF CASE ......................................................................................... 34 FIGURE 7: PALLET PATTERN AND CASE LOCATION ............................................................ 35 FIGURE 8: PALLET JACK ..................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 9: TAGS FACING OUTWARD .................................................................................. 37 FIGURE 10: TAGS FACING INWARD .................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 1 l: TAGS FACING FORWARD ................................................................................. 37 FIGURE 12: TAGS FACING UPWARD ................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 13: TAGS FACING DOWNWARD ........................................................... 38 FIGURE 14: EMPTY CASES ......................................................................... 38 FIGURE 15: FOAM-IN-PLACE IN CASE ................................................................................. 39 FIGURE 16: FOAM-IN-PLACE ...................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 17: RICE IN PET JAR ............................................................................................. 40 FIGURE 18: RICE JARS IN CASE .......................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 19: EMPTY PET BOTTLE ....................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 20: PET BOTTLE FILLED CASE .............................................................................. 41 FIGURE 21: EMPTY vs FULL BOTTLES ............................................................................... 41 FIGURE 22: 2D PARALLEL READ RANGE ........................................................................... 43 FIGURE 23: 1D PARALLEL READ RANGE - TOP VIEW ........................................................ 43 FIGURE 24: 3D PARALLEL READ RANGE REPLICA ............................................................. 44 FIGURE 25: 2D PERPENDICULAR READ RANGE .................................................................. 45 FIGURE 26: 1D PERPENDICULAR READ RANGE - ................................................................ 45 FIGURE 27: 3D PERPENDICULAR READ RANGE REPLICA ................................................... 46 FIGURE 28: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - TRIALS READS vs. NO READS ................ 55 FIGURE 29: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ......... 55 FIGURE 30: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING OUTWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN 56 FIGURE 31: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY TIER ...... 57 FIGURE 32: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY ROW ...... 57 FIGURE 33: CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY COLUMN ........... 57 FIGURE 34: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING IN - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ..................... 58 FIGURE 35: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING IN - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ............. 58 FIGURE 36: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING INWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN 59 FIGURE 37: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY TIER ......... 60 FIGURE 38: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY ROW ......... 60 FIGURE 39: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY COLUMN... 60 FIGURE 40: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ......... 61 FIGURE 41: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS 61 viii I ': .‘1EF‘T. . I TIGIRE 44:513. . TITLE-£45: EXIPT‘. COLOR ------ RGLRE 46: EVPT‘. FIGIRIE 47: EU?“- TIGTRE 48: Exam“. 120m 49: EWF TIC-LRE SO; ExtPT TEGLRE 51: EkTPT TIC-IRE 52: EHPT TIGLRE 53: EMPT TIGLRE 54:E\1?T FICLRE 55: EUR. FIGLRE 56: ExtPT FIGURE 57: EMF: Fla-RE 58: Eon FIGJIE 5.9; to A“ TIC-IRE 60: F0_-\\ BREAKDOR FIGL'RE 61:1:0M TIER ........... FIGLRE 62 F0 a” Ros .......... FIGY‘RE 63: Fox: Como u ............ ..... FIGURE 42: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN. 62 FIGURE 43: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY TIER ................................................................................................................................... 63 FIGURE 44: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY ROW ................................................................................................................................... 63 FIGURE 45: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY COLUMN .................................................................................................................... 63 FIGURE 46: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING UP - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS .................... 64 FIGURE 47: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING UP- TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ............ 64 FIGURE 48: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING UPWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN 65 FIGURE 49: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ....... 66 FIGURE 50: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ....... 66 FIGURE 51: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN 66 FIGURE 52: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ............... 67 FIGURE 53: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ...... 67 FIGURE 54: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING DOWNWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ................................................................................................................................... 68 FIGURE 55: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY TIER... 69 FIGURE 56: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY Row .. 69 FIGURE 57: EMPTY CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY COLUMN ................................................................................................................................... 69 FIGURE 58: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ....... 70 FIGURE 59: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READs70 FIGURE 60: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUTWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ............................................................................................................. 71 FIGURE 61: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ........................................................................................................................... 72 FIGURE 62: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ........................................................................................................................... 72 FIGURE 63: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT-PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN .................................................................................................................... 72 FIGURE 64: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ........... 73 FIGURE 65: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS .. 73 FIGURE 66: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING INWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ............................................................................................................. 74 FIGURE 67: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY TIER75 FIGURE 68: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF No READS BY ROW ................................................................................................................................... 75 FIGURE 69: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS BY COLUMN .................................................................................................................... 75 FIGURE 70: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ................................................................................................................................... 76 FIGURE 71: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - TOTAL TAG READS vs. No READS ........................................................................................................................ 76 FIGURE 72: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ............................................................................................................. 77 ix FIGURE 73: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD-PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ........................................................................................................................... 78 FIGURE 74: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READ PER ROW ........................................................................................................................... 78 FIGURE 75: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READ PER COLUMN .................................................................................................................... 78 FIGURE 76: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS .......... 79 FIGURE 77: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS. 79 FIGURE 78: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UPWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ............................................................................................................. 80 FIGURE 79: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ................................................................................................................................... 81 FIGURE 80: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ................................................................................................................................... 81 FIGURE 81: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF No READS PER COLUMN .................................................................................................................... 81 FIGURE 82: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS 82 FIGURE 83: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ................................................................................................................................... 82 FIGURE 84: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWNWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ............................................................................................................. 83 FIGURE 85: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ........................................................................................................................... 84 FIGURE 86: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ........................................................................................................................... 84 FIGURE 87: FOAM FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN .................................................................................................................... 84 FIGURE 88: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ......... 85 FIGURE 89: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ................................................................................................................................... 85 FIGURE 90: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUTWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ............................................................................................................. 86 FIGURE 91: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ................................................................................................................................... 87 FIGURE 92: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER Row ................................................................................................................................... 87 FIGURE 93: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF No READS PER COLUMN .................................................................................................................... 87 FIGURE 94: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - TRIAL READS vs. No READS ............. 88 FIGURE 95: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS 88 FIGURE 96: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING INWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ................................................................................................................................... 89 FIGURE 97: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER 90 FIGURE 98: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER Row90 FIGURE 99: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN .................................................................................................................... 9O FIGT'RE lOl: ICES READS ........ FIGIRE 102: RC. . BREAKDO“ ‘ TORI 103 -. RIO. ERTER ..... TIGTRE 104: RICE PER Rom ..... quulOiiUCI RRCqu HEREHbzRR' FETRE107an TIGLRE 108-. RII BREAKDOI TKRREIWRTU ................ ooooooooooooooo FIGURE 111: R COLI_'\I\’ Home 111-. F FIGLRE 113: F FIGLRE11411 BREAKD FIGLRF 115: ? TIER ..... FIGURE I l6: ROW", FIGLRE 117: COLL'KI FIGL'RE 1181 READg_ F‘GLRE 119; N0 RE: FIGLRE 130; BREAK} FIC’IREl‘l- ADP 122- FIGLIRE PI READS GI-RE 123. FIGURE 100: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ................................................................................................................................... 91 FIGURE 101: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - TOTAL TAG READS vs. No READS ........................................................................................................................ 91 FIGURE 102: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ............................................................................................................. 92 FIGURE 103: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF No READS PER TIER .................................................................................................................... 93 FIGURE 104: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW .................................................................................................................... 93 FIGURE 105: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN .............................................................................................................. 93 FIGURE 106: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - TRIAL READS vs. No READS .......... 94 FIGURE 107: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS. 94 FIGURE 108: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UPWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ............................................................................................................. 95 FIGURE 109: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ................................................................................................................................... 96 FIGURE 1 10: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ................................................................................................................................... 96 FIGURE 1 1 1: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN .................................................................................................................... 96 FIGURE 1 12: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS 97 FIGURE 1 13: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ................................................................................................................................... 97 FIGURE 1 14: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWNWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ............................................................................................................. 98 FIGURE 1 15: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ........................................................................................................................... 99 FIGURE 1 16: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ........................................................................................................................... 99 FIGURE 117: RICE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN .................................................................................................................... 99 FIGURE 1 18: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT — TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ...................................................................................................................... 100 FIGURE 1 19: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ................................................................................................................ 100 FIGURE 120: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUTWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ........................................................................................................... 101 FIGURE 121: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READ PER TIER ........................................................................................................ 102 FIGURE 122: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER Row ...................................................................................................... 102 FIGURE 123: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN ................................................................................................ 102 xi FIGURE 124: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN — TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ...................................................................................................................... 103 FIGURE 125: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ...................................................................................................................... 103 FIGURE 126: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING INWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ........................................................................................................... 104 FIGURE 127: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER .................................................................................................................. 105 FIGURE 128: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW .................................................................................................................. 105 FIGURE 129: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN ............................................................................................................ 105 FIGURE 130: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ................................................................................................................ 106 FIGURE 131: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS .......................................................................................................... 106 FIGURE 132: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ........................................................................................................... 107 FIGURE 133: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ................................................................................................. 108 FIGURE 134: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ................................................................................................ 108 FIGURE 135: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN .......................................................................................... 108 FIGURE 136: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ...................................................................................................................... 109 FIGURE 137 : EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ...................................................................................................................... 109 FIGURE 138: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UPWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ........................................................................................................... 1 10 FIGURE 139: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ....................................................................................................... 1 1 1 FIGURE 140: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF No READS PER ROW ...................................................................................................... 1 1 1 FIGURE 141: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN ................................................................................................ ll 1 FIGURE 142: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ...................................................................................................................... l 12 FIGURE 143: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ................................................................................................................ 1 12 FIGURE 144: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWNWARD - READ BREAKDOWN PERCENTAGE ...................................................................................... 1 13 FIGURE 145: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ....................................................................................................... 1 14 FIGURE 146: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER Row ...................................................................................................... l 14 xii TIGLRE 147:E\ READS PE? FIGIRE 148: “' READS ...... HORN-19‘.“ NO RE ADS TlGL‘RE 150: \\ PERCESTA FIGI‘RI 151: \\ READS PE FIGIRE 152: \1 READS PE FIGURE 153: \X READS PE FIGLRI 154: \1 READS... FIGTRT 155: V READS..- FIGLRE 156: V BREAKD- FIGLRE 157: V READS Pi FIGIRE 158: I READS p! BORE 159: I READS p FIGLRE 1(>0: 1 X0 RE A: FIGURE 161: I "5- NO R FIGURE 16: I FIGURE 147: EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN ................................................................................................ 1 14 FIGURE 148: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ...................................................................................................................... 1 15 FIGURE 149: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ................................................................................................................ 1 15 FIGURE 150: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUTWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ...................................................................................... 116 FIGURE 151: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF No READS PER TIER ....................................................................................................... 1 17 FIGURE 152: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ...................................................................................................... 1 17 FIGURE 153: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING OUT - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN ................................................................................................ 1 17 FIGURE 154: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ...................................................................................................................... 118 FIGURE 155: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - TOTAL TAG READS vs. No READS ...................................................................................................................... l 18 FIGURE 156: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING INWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ........................................................................................................... l 19 FIGURE 157: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ....................................................................................................... 120 FIGURE 158: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ...................................................................................................... 120 FIGURE 159: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING IN - PERCENTAGE OF No READS PER COLUMN ................................................................................................ 120 FIGURE 160: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ................................................................................................................ 121 FIGURE 161: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING FORWARD- TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS .......................................................................................................... 121 FIGURE 162: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAG FACING FORWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ........................................................................................................... 122 FIGURE 163: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAG FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ....................................................................................................... 123 FIGURE 164: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAG FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ...................................................................................................... 123 FIGURE 165: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAG FACING FORWARD - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN ................................................................................................ 123 FIGURE 166: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - TRIAL READS vs. NO READS ...................................................................................................................... 124 FIGURE 167: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - TOTAL TAG READS vs. NO READS ...................................................................................................................... 124 FIGURE 168: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UPWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ........................................................................................................... 125 FIGURE 169: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ....................................................................................................... 126 xiii FIGURE 170: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ...................................................................................................... 126 FIGURE 171: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING UP - PERCENTAGE OF No READS PER COLUMN ................................................................................................ 126 FIGURE 172: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - TRIAL READS vs. No READS ...................................................................................................................... 127 FIGURE 173: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - TOTAL TAG READS VS. NO READS ................................................................................................................ 127 FIGURE 174: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWNWARD - READ PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN ...................................................................................... 128 FIGURE 175: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER TIER ....................................................................................................... 129 FIGURE 176: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER ROW ...................................................................................................... 129 FIGURE 177: WATER BOTTLE FILLED CASES, TAGS FACING DOWN - PERCENTAGE OF NO READS PER COLUMN ................................................................................................ 129 FIGURE 178: TOP VIEW OF READ RANGE MAPPING TAG ORIENTATION .......................... 144 FIGURE 179: C CHART OF NO READS FOR EMPTY IN ....................................................... 148 FIGURE 180: C CHART OF No READS FOR EMPTY DOWN ................................................ 149 FIGURE 181: C CHART OF NO READS FOR FOAM IN ......................................................... 150 FIGURE 182: C CHART OF NO READS FOR FOAM DOWN .................................................. 151 FIGURE 183: C CHART OF NO READS FOR RICE OUT ....................................................... 152 FIGURE 184: CONTROL PLOT OF NO READS FOR RICE FACING IN .................................... 153 FIGURE 185: CONTROL PLOT OF NO READS FOR RICE FACING FORWARD ........................ 154 FIGURE 186: CONTROL PLOT OF NO READS FOR RICE FACING UP .................................... 155 FIGURE 187: CONTROL PLOT OF NO READS FOR RICE FACING DOWN .............................. 156 FIGURE 188: C CHART OF NO READS FOR EMPTY BOTTLE 1N .......................................... 157 FIGURE 189: C CHART OF NO READS FOR EMPTY BOTTLE DOWN ................................... 158 FIGURE 190: C CHART OF READS FOR WATER IN ............................................................ 159 FIGURE 191: INTERVAL PLOT OF SELECTED EMPTY, FOAM AND EMPTY BOTTLE FILLED CASES ....................................................................................................................... 160 FIGURE 192: INTERVAL PLOT OF WATER VERSES RICE FILLED CASES ............................... 161 FIGURE 193: INTERVAL PLOT OF SELECTED RICE AND WATER ORTENTATTONS ................. 162 xiv Alli .-‘A~ DC D DOD l't‘. TAN E1: E15 EIc EPC It. ER? E111 I HI FCC Tet FDA [n ”I To. “‘01 III 611A Gr (III (III ISO Int III III: kHz Ki MHZ Mt III II. m MI. ”1111 Mil DC DOD BAN EAS EPC ERP FCC FDA F IP Fl. Oz. GMA GHz ISO JIT MIT mL KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS Automatic Identification and Data Capture Association for Automatic Identification and Data Capture Technologies Distribution Center United States Department of Defense European Article Numbering Association Electronic Article Surveillance Elecuonic Product Code Enterprise Resource Planning Fahrenheit Federal Communications Commission United States Federal Drug Administration F oam-In-Place Fluid Ounces Grocery Manufacturers Association Gigahertz International Organization for Standards Just-In-Time Kilohertz Megahertz Massachusetts Institute of Technology Milliliter Millimeter NTIA OCR Oz PET PLC Readers RFID R0 RSCs RTLS SKU Tags UCC UPC WMS WORM 1D 2D 3D National Telecommunications and Information Administration Optical Character Recognition Ounce Polyethylene Terephthalate Programmable Logic Controller Interrogators Radio Frequency Radio Frequency Identification Relative Humidity Read Only Regular Slotted Containers Real-Time Locating Systems Read/W rite Stock Keeping Unit Transponders Uniform Code Council Ultra High Frequency Universal Product Code Warehouse Management System Write Once/Read Many One-Dimensional Two-Dimensional Three-Dimensional CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION Automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) techniques have been around for decades. The competitive advantages offered by these technologies have vaulted them into the forefiont. Of the AIDC technologies, radio frequency identification (RF ID) has become the focus in the business world in large part, due to the requirements set forth by Wal-Mart, the Department of Defense and other major corporations’ announcements to adopt RFID in 2005. RFID is not a new technology, and it has been used and perfected in a number of markets. Currently, RF ID is widely used in electronic toll collection, parking access, livestock tracking/farm management and race sports timing. However, RFID is not established in the area of tracking goods in the supply chain, where the barcode has been traditionally used. The benefits of RFID for the tracking of goods throughout the supply chain will be continuous, provided the technology works as promoted, 100% of the time. The primary benefits of implementing RFID include improved inventory control, reduced labor and increased throughput. Other benefits include reduced shrinkage and theft, improved product recalls and better track and trace capabilities. The benefits could possibly exceed those experienced by companies when they introduced the barcode. This is due to the ability of RFID tags to be read regardless of line-of-site (sometimes) and the ability to identify individual items (not just stock keeping units). However, many of the same challenges experienced years ago with the implementation of the barcode are also problem areas for RFID. These issues need to be overcome before RFID experiences wide-spread adoption. The implementation of this technology will not be as simple as placing an RF ID transponder on products and an antennae/reader system in a production/distribution center and reaping the rewards. There are many obstacles to be overcome in order to gain the benefits this technology can provide. These obstacles range from high equipment/system costs to limitations due to the physics surrounding the technology. Standards and data synchronization will also be barriers to overcome before RFID is being used to its full business potential. Public education on the capabilities of the technology and the assurance that RFID will not be used for tracking individuals purchases and shopping behavior will need to be addressed. The RFID industry is being driven by many factors. The increased demand for equipment due to the mandates and recommendations of major retailers, government agencies and consumer packaged goods companies are driving equipment costs down. Although RFID is highly adaptable and can work in many environments and conditions, it will need to be tested and piloted in the areas/environments where it will be implemented. This is due to the interference issues surrounding the technology. Because of these issues, there will not likely be a single, world-wide solution for implementing and using RFID. Rather, it will need to be researched and tested on a “case by case” basis. Similar research has been done by RFID system manufacturers, and it is the author’s opinion that these results are highly skewed to show a technology with capabilities that are much fiirther advanced than really possible. The purpose of this research is to provide an unbiased test of an RFID system and evaluate the obstacles that are faced when implementing such a system. The research began with mapping a read range of the RF ID system to determine problem areas within the radio frequency (RF) field pertaining to read range and tag orientation. This evolved into evaluating the readability of RFID tags for case tagging/tracking at the pallet level. This was to simulate a pallet load of product entering or leaving a dock door. Variables for this research include: package contents and case/tag orientation on the pallet. Hypotheses for this research are: 0 The orientation of the RFID tag on the package will have no effect on the readability of the transponders, o The product contained in the package will not have an effect on the readability of the RFID transponders, 0 Cases containing products made up of water will have lower read rates than those cases containing waterless products, 0 All waterless products will have the same rate of readability. This research is significant to industry because very little information is publicly available about the accuracy of RFID systems and the effect tag placement and different products have on the readability of tags. The results demonstrate the affect these variables have on read accuracy for palletized loads. With corporations mandating the use of RFID in the near future, this information will allow companies to be better informed of the problems that can arise when using/implementing an RF ID system. mt Tuba 0\( With in: lcdung for cor. and Stfi'lCE. A mesh! in a isle on new i into the ford mppl} chair Rad heading of The indus a compm Controile behind c idemi‘fi aux CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW AIDC Technologeo Overview With increased competition and pressure from stockholders, companies are looking for competitive advantages to increase bottom line profits while expanding sales and service. A competitive advantage can move a company from mediocre to highly successful in a relatively short time, especially if the competition is not willing to take risks on new innovations and technologies. Radio fiequency identification has vaulted into the forefront of the business world because of the potential it has to revolutionize the supply chain and retail outlets. Radio frequency identification; however, is only one technology under the heading of Automatic Identification and Data Collection (AIDC). AIDC is defined as “the industry term which describes the identification and/or direct collection of data into a computer system, programmable logic controller (PLC), or other microprocessor- controlled device without using a keyboard” (AIM (I) 2004). There are two objectives behind every AIDC technology: to accelerate the throughput process and to eliminate identification and/or data collection errors (AIM (II) 2004). There are several forms of AIDC technologies and a number of uses for such technologies. Some of the more common forms of AIDC are: radio frequency identification, barcodes, real-time locating systems (RTLS), electronic article surveillance (EAS), card technologies (including magnetic stripe and smart card), voice and vision systems, optical character recognition (OCR), and biometrics. Although some are not new technologies, they all fall under the broad category of Automatic Identification and Data Collection. II is intpo warmly. the) EEOWIIOD llov. OHM when v with barcodes m bl‘éineSS 'm mm. Mug lnIOrma mums lnl0rm militia allg bUSlm all0\,\' B‘m’dcs Halted: Checkomalat mflflbfifia madeull‘ofar characters and ' ‘h. DWI ‘~3 bar c 35‘34). A sea humaSmd n‘Imen'c of 4: M“ (R )1 are dependent It is important to remember that although these technologies are listed individually, they are often coupled together to provide a broader or more reliable base of information flow. Radio frequency identification is commonly used with the other forms of AIDC when wireless communication and electronic transfer of data is desired, such as with barcodes or smart cards. The implementation of an AIDC technology can improve a business in three ways: it allows for automated, inexpensive data entry, it is capable of making information instantaneously available in electronic form, and it provides the most accurate information in the most economically feasible option (AIM (I) 2004). These capabilities allow a company to have the most current and accurate view of their business, allowing for flexible, up to date business decisions. Barcodes Barcodes are a fundamental part of business and retailing of today, whether for checkout at a retail outlet or tracking goods throughout the supply chain. There are several types and styles of barcodes. Most typical is a one dimensional linear barcode made up of a pattern of parallel dark bars and spaces that are graphical images of data characters and control characters (also referred to as bar code symbology). There are over 225 bar code symbologies, though only a small number are widely used (AIM (III) 2004). A second-type of barcodes, two dimensional, are able to store a greater amount of data in a smaller area. Two dimensional barcodes have the ability to store up to 7000 numeric or 4200 alpha-numeric characters, compared with 50 for one dimensional barcodes (Ryan 2002). The type of bar code and the amount of information stored on it are dependent on what the application and requirements for its use are. In LP. aid:- the {000 and re cide' The reSull or” gamed at a check 36.1974 at a Marsh There were 1 M1003) there are ; 1‘1“ng problem and substrates. Cor of its dark Surface 2 and tm“Sl‘afent ma mes, “'16 lig- mmgmy COlOr Ol'l In the late 1960’s representatives from a number of associations dealing with the food and retail industry decided there was a need for an "inter-industry product code." The result of this was the Universal Product Code (UPC). The first item to be scanned at a check out using the UPC was a lO-pack of Wrigley's chewing gum on June 26, 1974 at a Marsh Supermarket in Troy, Ohio (Uniform Code Council 2003). There were many technology barriers and obstacles to overcome in the beginning; but today there are approximately five billion barcode scans per day. Some of the technology problems occurred due to printing barcodes on different packaging materials and substrates. Corrugated board was a challenge to print and read barcodes on because of its dark surface and the differences between virgin and recycled corrugated. Flexible and transparent materials were and still are a major challenge in printing and reading barcodes. The light in a room and the color (many companies wanted to stay with the company color on the package) of the barcode can be major issues when dealing with barcodes. Creating barcodes small enough to fit on certain packages and synchronizing barcodes across a company were also challenges when implementing the technology (LaMoreaux 1995). Barcode Standards Barcode technology has given retailers, manufacturers and government agencies the ability to control their inventory more efficiently, to provide better insight for inventory and goods forecasting, and has enabled for faster and more accurate check out at retail outlets. However, if it wasn’t for the work of several agencies in creating worldwide standards for the use of barcodes, the technology would still be in its infancy. The two major organizations behind the development of worldwide standards for barcodes were the Uniform Code Council (UCC) and the European Article Numbering (BAN) Association. There are literally thousands of standards pertaining to barcodes, from how they are produced to their numbering schemes; however the one thing in common with all of them is that they are universal. This was not an overnight process; many hardships and confusing instances between suppliers and retailers about goods were experienced. The result of these mishaps and the hard work by the different standards organizations resulted in a more efficient and accurate supply chain in all industries. This technology changed and modernized the way businesses have been operated for the past three decades. Barcodes allowed for extensive growth and increased efficiency for many companies. However, radio frequency identification is ready to make the next technological leap. This will not be an overnight process and, for some applications, RFID will not prove to be as beneficial or economical as barcodes. RFID Supply Chain Impacts The main reason retailers and manufacturers are exploring RFID is the impact the technology can have on the supply chain. With profit margins being thin, the supply chain efficiency that RFID systems can provide will directly affect the bottom line profits of a company. One area where RFID can be used in the supply chain is to improve inventory control. The use of RFID will automate the receiving and shipping processes, thus eliminating requisite time and labor costs, while increasing the throughput process. [its RFID 10 "3‘ ‘ mute the accumx til protidc the C07 _ t (3 reduce OWE“ if? time infomration gt firming future 3 herniation about 2: I‘ll) delivery W ofqurlitt control in for food and pharma walls will possib‘.) eliminating the chm ‘double check" a sf [hf MC! hearse 30568 were sent fro Even if a numeric Mar)" finding r WIt‘rfeit “16 use of l supp!) chain by p“. ample. ifa Paclai Inform the retailer u Using RF ID to track raw materials, work-in-process and finished goods inventory will increase the accuracy and visibility of inventory at all levels of the supply chain. This will provide the confidence to allow raw material suppliers, manufacturers, and retailers to reduce overall inventory levels, labor costs and safety stock (Intermec 2003). The real- time information gathered from the tracking of these goods will also aid the company in forecasting future demands. In a properly operating system, it will provide up-to-date information about finished goods to others in the supply chain, allowing just-in-time (JIT) delivery capabilities and instantaneous inventory counts. The ability to trace goods back to their manufacturers will provide higher levels of quality control in the supply chain. This ability will also increase the level of safety for food and pharmaceuticals throughout the supply chain and retail outlets. Product recalls will possibly be made instantaneously down to the exact item, theoretically eliminating the chance that any of the items get sold. RFID also affords the ability to “double check” a shipping notice. This may also prevent counterfeit drugs from entering the market because a pharmacist can say 25 bottles of this drug with these 25 unique codes were sent from the manufacturer and these same exact 25 bottles were received. Even if a counterfeit drug manufacturer were able to attain one of the unique codes, a pharmacy finding two bottles with the same unique code, would be alerted of a counterfeit. The use of RFID should greatly reduce the level of shrinkage that occurs in the supply chain by providing increased visibility of individual cases of product. For example, if a package of case ready meat were close to expiration a notification could inform the retailer to put that item on the shelf immediately. This same example could be 05?; for recalls of It a: the dale. RFID mamamem if an H the item p636 ll”: Asset mane-g med to locate a cer: “llc‘ll a certain emit; he item is lost or it Brooks 2002'). The benefits harmles. These be out olthe equation. Mock. such as (h. Site minim lmafi time and lempcrati IS 001 201112 IO beg RFID Sundards Them are! used for recalls or for safety issues in that the meat could be discarded if the product was past the date. RFID also has the potential to aid in loss prevention by alerting management if an item has left the building that was not supposed to, or sound an alarm if the item passes through an unauthorized door. Asset management is another area where RFID will play a large role. It can be used to locate a certain item in the supply chain or a building and also track where and when a certain entity had that particular item. This should eliminate finger pointing when the item is lost or stolen and also reduce manual labor to find the lost item (Kambil & Brooks 2002). The benefits of RFID are similar to those discussed over 40 years ago with barcodes. These benefits are significant due to increased speeds and taking human error out of the equation. RFID has many more applications and advancements over the barcode, such as the ability to continuously update information to a tag, no direct line-of- site required (maybe) to transfer data and the ability to “think on its own” such as with time and temperature indicators integrated into RFID tags. Much like the barcode, RFID is not going to become widely utilized without global standards. RFID Standards There are several major organizations working to create worldwide standards for the use of RFID. The International Organization of Standards (ISO) has been actively establishing standards in this arena for the last several years. Others include the two major organizations involved with barcode standards: UCC and EAN International. These two organizations have combined to form EPCglobal Inc., a not-for-profit , an Oil»- . r' mac? I“- result rpm: are: u lL'LUT‘E Rle nets? alien organization, assigned to drive the global, multi-industry adoption and implementation of the EPCglobal Network (EPCglobalUS 2004). These organizations have teamed with over 100 industry members to drive the technology forward. However, since the application of RFID in the supply chain is new, the technology is continuously changing and evolving, making standardization extremely difficult. Currently, there are several industry wide standards and even more working standards which continually change and evolve as the technology does. In essence, an application can be EPC compliant one day and the next day, out of standard. This is one area where RFID needs to improve and with EPCglobal and ISO leading the way, the future looks promising. RFID Cost With all of these benefits, why hasn’t RFID been used and implemented until now? One of the main reasons is cost. RFID systems, when compared to barcodes, are extremely expensive. But the cost of RFID tags is continually going down because of an increased supply of tags and improved technology, and this should be an ongoing trend into the future. However, it is still not at the level needed for widespread adoption. Alien Technology has cut the price of tags to less than 20 cents each for orders above one million (Collins (I) 2004). RF ID readers can cost anywhere fi-om five hundred to one thousand dollars apiece; however, some readers are reaching prices as low as $300 (Cosgrove 2004). These hardware costs don’t account for the price of reader antennae or the fact that 10 multiple readers a: at also neglect mutants or II to calm the la: Mlt‘ll Cor Chm. RFlD l5 6? for as little as la the ”MIC inte Modes are so t RHD. RllD lndustr} lllt mar radig fr“*lucnc} coInmitme“1 sh hm ho“ 0f it RF“) is the “.3 COIN-tr. large,~ lesco. RF ID inclu d e ‘ Administration lofted into US“ multiple readers and antennae may have to be used to achieve the desired results. These costs also neglect the need to rework the supply chain software currently in use, the consultants or IT people to make these changes, implement the system and the know-how to analyze the data, and make decisions based on it. When compared with the current technologies used to track goods in the supply chain, RFID is extremely costly. Common UPC barcodes can be produced and applied for as little as half a cent a piece using existing technology. Barcode systems still require the software integration and readers that are needed for RFID adoption, but since barcodes are so widespread the cost of these systems are small compared to those of RFID. RFID Industry Drivers The mandates of several large retailers and government agencies have brought radio frequency identification to the forefront of the technology industry. The commitment shown by these organizations will drive down the costs and increase the know how of implementing RFID systems. With this type of backing for the technology, RFID is the wave of the future. Corporations supporting and using RFID include retail heavyweight Wal-Mart, Target, Tesco, Marks & Spencer and Metro. Government agencies committed to using RFID include the Department of Defense (DOD) and the United Stated Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Several consumer packaged goods companies (CPG) have been forced into using RFID because of the requirements set forth by their suppliers. 11 ll'rlllm ln li 29:13: ‘0) his. ‘l'al-l gnarl re thle i. . 'C'tt’llli‘t’f it shaped- the hit: ll; range l 9) 5 tell Out. ln through a p lee: PET mir mm!) at Alth Mun pllOIi; (Oml‘aflleg i PM“ loh PM“ & Ga Mills (We. ll?! Olqeau matte 90m l Wal-Mart In June of 2003, Wal-Mart armounced plans to require case and pallet level RFID tagging by January 2005 for its top 100 suppliers (Business Week Online 2004). In doing this, Wal-Mart became one of the first to mandate the use of RF ID for shipments of general retail merchandise pallets and cases. Their initial implementation plan for the use of RF ID is to require tagging of cases and pallets shipped by their top 100 suppliers. In November of 2003, they clarified the roll-out by saying goods tagged with RFID will first be shipped to three distribution centers (DCs) in Texas by January 2005 and to other DCs in the future. Wal-Mart has mandated the use of passive RF ID tags at the ultra high frequency range (91 SMHz) containing a 96-bit electronic product code (EPC), for this phase of the roll out. In this phase, they are requiring 100% reads of all pallet tags being brought through a portal system and 100% reads of case tags on a conveyor traveling up to 600 feet per minute. There are no details on tag placement and consequences of mis-reads currently available (W al-Mart 2004). Although the mandate was received by Wal-Mart suppliers with anger and resentment, many of the top CPG companies have jumped on board. Companies have begun piloting RFID projects of their own and in conjunction with Wal-Mart. Companies involved with Wal-Mart in their piloting phase include: Gillette, Hewlett- Packard, Johnson & Johnson, Kimberly-Clark, Kraft Foods, Nestle Purina PetCare Co., Procter & Gamble and Unilever (Roberti 2004). Although the implementation costs and benefits of doing so are not concrete at this stage, the companies are moving ahead in hopes of creating competitive advantages through supply chain efficiency for their respective companies. 12 mo from leing ISO- lourd raga stating in l biological u lanes (Bacl Other Reta; Alibi fi'rirRl‘lD n ll): llttro G lllD ‘m {um bl W) sum; l US. Department of Defense (DOD) On September 15, 2003 RFID Journal announced that the US. Department of Defense planned to ask its top 100 suppliers to put passive RFID tags on cases, pallets and high value items. This was no surprise, given the three month earlier requirement put forth by Wal-Mart and the fact that the DOD is already one of the leaders in using active RFID technology. Since the 1991 Gulf War, all pallets sent to the Gulf and the Middle East have been tracked using active RFID tags (RFID Journal (I) 2003). The requirements behind the DOD’s edict have been very broad. According to a memo fi'om the DOD outlining its RFID strategy, it wanted to use EPC technology while being ISO-compliant (RF ID Journal (II) 2003) . At this time, no specific details could be found regarding the DOD RFID mandate. The DOD was to conduct several pilots starting in February of 2004. Products involved in these pilots include meals ready to eat, biological warfare suits, and supplies that move from distribution centers to tactical forces (Bacheldor 2003). Other Retailers Although the DOD and Wal-Mart are the main companies garnering headlines for their RFID requirements, others have been working on and mandating the use of RFID. The Metro Group, the world’s fifth largest retailer, is one of the main retailers pushing RF ID in Europe (Sliwa 2004). In January of 2003, they announced an initiative to their top 100 suppliers requiring them to carry out pallet and crate level tagging on items (mainly beer and media-related items) to be delieverd to Metro’s warehouses and stores 13 Wt unlit Of: an: M actit theist- 66“ mud lull Stitl razor blades ll! & Gamble t Sli lEfbllllL ll with (Pail: lesco i: intoltcd uitlt ; placed demand: the research an an Accordi late for hating lounal tlll l 30 lit'ibution ccn Mach 3 Razor 8 hummer Med bl El’l‘g. Marts t- 5 ”30 embracing illt litres from Harlin “RM" Spencerh .4 by November of 2004 (Barlas 2004). This is not a surprise because Metro has been one of the most active in pilot testing RFID. They have created the “Future Store” in Rheinberg, Germany to test RFID and other technologies and now they are ready to move toward full scale use. Currently at the Future Store, Metro does item level tagging on razor blades from Gillette, cream cheese from Kraft and Pantene shampoo from Proctor & Gamble (Sliwa 2004). The frequency range used for the initial phase of this roll out is 13.56MHz. The type of tags or the expectations Metro has for this irnplementaion are unknown (Paijens 2004). Tesco is the leading retailer in the United Kingdom and has been actively involved with piloting and testing RFID (RF ID Journal (III) 2003). Although it has not placed demands on its suppliers as of yet, it is encouraging them to actively participate in the research and development of RFID implementation throughout the Tesco supply chain. According to Greg Sage, a spokesman for the company, “We don’t have an exact date for having all suppliers on board, but it is likely to be sometime in 2007” (RF ID Journal (III) 2003). Tesco has been testing RFID in several of its UK. stores and distribution centers. These pilots involved tagging products such as DVDs and Gillette Mach 3 Razor Blades, using EPC Class 1 tags supplied by Alien (Thomas 2003). Tesco has not stated what standards it will utilize in their full RFID implementation, those created by EPCglobal or those set forth by ISO (RF ID Journal (111) 2003). Marks & Spencer, a leading food and clothing retailer in the United Kingdom, is also embracing the use of RF ID. They have completed numerous pilots on RFID in their stores from tracking individual clothing items to reusable trays in their supply chain. Marks & Spencer has tested numerous systems and fiequency ranges throughout the 14 pilolt “hitch has l‘ :llfue 2004 ). E llM‘ tent in tl med and rece “hill and Hit trial “at a succe ll? 13:1ng in set ln the m required to use l; W151 {Gram 1 miles on lelu “flattm 031‘ 0 and (1,1,, ilhlll’il is appm Mm“ mm in the ne. illllcrs [0 mg ll: thnh. hanm liltderal Drug . Welling mm]: A pilots, which has been partially funded by the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry (McCue 2004). During the testing, which took place in a single store, they tagged over 10,000 items in three separate categories, men’s suits, shirts and ties because they are all shipped and received in different ways (Collins (11) 2004). This was done to see the validity and value that each RF ID system can offer. Marks & Spencer asertains that the trial was a success and is in the process of planning a second trial in which more items are tagged in several different outlets throughout the United Kingdom. In the months following the Wal-Mart announcement that suppliers would be required to use RFID tags on incoming goods, several other major retailers have put a request forward to their suppliers. Target, the fourth leading retailer in US, told its top suppliers on February 20, 2004 that they would be requiring case and pallet level tagging to a select few regional DCs by late spring of 2005. They are requiring the use of EPC Class 0 and Class 1 protocols but expect to move to Class 1 Generation 2 when the standard is approved (RF ID Journal (I) 2004). Albertsons, another food and drug retailer, has announced its plans to use RF ID systems in the near future. They have yet to specify a date in which they will require suppliers to tag items, but they are looking at mandating suppliers to tag all cases and pallets they ship. Albertsons has been an active member of EPCglobal, so it is assumed they will follow the standards set forth by this group (Yahoo News 2004). US. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) On February 18, 2003, the FDA, in its final report on ways to reduce drug counterfeiting, entitled Combating Counterfeit Drugs, said that RFID could play an 15 it’gril role in : elRllD for U3 Tilt. The ll nil-mm; lamenting Ml Silt an. trend} int. fv'eral FDA: FDA Plans to nth RFID an llllD Techm Radio MW used Willa: ids ldmllllCafiOn 3 lit u'orldujde 2 3: flfit CO!) and lnCC freq]- a la: integral role in anticounterfeiting strategies beginning next year. The report says the use of RFID for track-and-trace technology is feasable by the year 2007 (RF ID Journal (11) 2004). The FDAs goal is to create an “electronic pedigree” that uses EPC technology to track-and-trace phamaceutical drugs. An electronic pedigree is a secure record, documenting how a drug was manufactrued and distributed and ensuring that it was under safe and secure conditions during this time (RF ID Journal (III) 2004). The FDA is extremely interested in how Wal-Mart progresses with its RFID drug tracking and has several FDA agents actively involved with the project (RFID Journal (IV) 2003). The FDA plans to continue its active participation in EPCglobal in order to move forward with RF ID and its use to track pharmaceutical drugs. RFID Technology Overview Radio fi'equency identification (RF ID) has been around for several decades and has been used in a number of markets and applications, fi'om toll collection on highways to airplane identification in WWII. RFID is defined by the Association for Automatic Identification and Data Capture Technologies (AIM), a global trade organization that is the worldwide authority on AIDC, as: “Systems that read or write data to RF tags that are present in a radio fiequency field projected fiom RF reading/writing equipment. Data may be contained in one (1) or more bits for the purpose of providing identification and other information relevant to the object to which the tag is attached. It incorporates the use of electromagnetic or electrostatic coupling in the radio frequency portion of the spectrum to communicate to or fiom a tag through a variety of modulation and encodation schemes” (AIM 1994). 16 In other words, RFID systems use radio waves to transmit information from an integrated circuit through a wireless interchange to a host computer. There are four main components to radio frequency identification systems: the tag, the reader, the antenna/antennae and the host computer, see Figure 1. Network / Internet Host Computer lnterrogator Interrogation Zone Antennae x = Transponders 4' ' -) =Wireless Communication Figure 1: RFID System Components 17 Frequency Allocation The data of RFID tags is carried on radio waves through an air interface at a given frequency. The operating frequency is designated by the government of a given country. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) designate the use of the radio frequency spectrum for given applications within a certain frequency (Ryan 2002). There are several different frequency ranges available in the United States for the use of RFID systems. These ranges are not global standards, so what is available in the U.S. may not be available in Europe or China. The four main fiequency ranges used in the U.S. are: 0 125kHz to l36kHz (Low) 0 13.56Mhz (High) 0 862MHz to 928MHz (Ultra High) 0 2.4SGHz (Microwave) (IBM 2003). In Europe common operating frequency for ultra high frequencies (UHF) are 433MHz and 868MHz. Each fi'equency range has different capabilities and drawbacks associated with it. When choosing a frequency it is important to consider what the product is and the environment in which the tag will be used as these both play a large role in the effectiveness of an RFID system. Generally, the higher the frequency the more susceptible the system is to interference and the larger the read range. Interference may come from the product or the environment. If a short read range is desired, problems could arise when using a higher fiequency system because tags that are not intended to read may. 18 lm east. 5 can be } 3453. get lathe/t“): tags are to later} isu Trr film does nt' Met shun attention a Whom)” Wthltfina} MOW/firm In addition to frequency range, power allotment for the system is also determined by government agencies and plays a pivotal role in the operation of an RFID system. The Federal Communication Commission in part 15 section 247 designates the maximum peak output power of the intentional radiator shall not exceed 1 watt (Federal Communication Commission 2004). Transponder Power Source There are many different styles, types and capabilities of RFID transponders (tags). The source of power to run a tag can come from one of two places. Active tags, can be powered up from an internal power source (battery) attached to the tag. Passive tags, get their power from the radio signal transmitted from the system antennae (Savi Technology 2002). Semi-active tags are a combination of these two types. Semi-active tags are commonly used in conjunction with time temperature indicators, where the battery is used to supply power to the indicator and the tag operates as a passive system. Typically an RFID tag that operates with a power source is more costly than one that does not. There are drawbacks and advantages to each of these types of tags, and the power source for a tag should be decided on a case by case basis depending on the application and requirements. Transponder Memory Capabilities Tags are also differentiated by their memory capabilities. Read/write (R/HO tags contain information that can be continually added to and modified. Read only (R0) tags are programmed at the manufacturer with a unique identification number and no 19 all lam tunnel nrul J' medal 5 tireless c R: tbs) can b protcol. o litcnninin; latent: llk u than, lie at llllllhg m 5" time WW A additional information can be added. Write-once/read-many (WORM) tags allow for the user of the tag to write its own unique information to the tag and read it countless times (Intermec 2003). The memory capabilities of RFID tags are like compact discs for music. A disc bought in a music store would be like a R0 tag, a disc burned/made on a CD-W would be a WORM, and a disc made on a CD-RW would be like a W tag. Interrogators RFID readers (interrogators) come in many different forms and styles. There are tunnel readers, often used on production lines, or fixed mount readers used in portal/dock-door set-ups. Handheld readers are used in applications were mobility is needed, such as in cross docking and warehousing, and are often used in conjunction with wireless computer systems. Readers can be a combination of an antenna and a transceiver in a single unit, or they can be separate depending on the requirements desired. The communication protocol, operating frequency and power allotments are also considerations when determining what RFID reader to use for an application. Antennae The antennae are critical operating components in both the tag and operating system. The antennae, in both cases, are used for sending and receiving radio waves. RFID tag and system antennae come in many shapes and styles. Typically the larger the antennae the greater the read range. 20 r5534 32c «19‘ U. s: mi was potter 3 fl stem. l Qtupllflg : imprint ntcrt‘ercnc llostfom; lhe anhn III/3955 Ill/it Ran/rig data (liltihthttlthj For the system antennae there are stick antennae, gate antennae, square antennae, rectangle antennae all with different qualities and costs. The main difference between types is the shape and size of the antennae. Widely used tag antennae configurations include the squiggle tag from Alien and the dual dipole from Matrics. Most RF ID tags are made from etching aluminum or copper, and current research is focusing on conductive inks to directly print the RF ID antennae on a package or label substrate. The type, size and range of antennae are often dependent on the operation principle; whether it is electromagnetic/inductive coupling or a system based upon propagating electromagnetic waves (AIM 1998). Coupling refers to how the data and power are transferred, i.e. how radio waves are produced. In an inductive coupling RFID system, waves are produced by inducing a current in a coil; in an electromagnetic coupling system a magnetic field is utilized to transfer data or power (AIM 1994). It is important to remember that an overabundance of antennae in a given area can lead to interference and greatly reduce the read range. Host Computer The host computer of an RFID system is the final piece of the hardware. This is one of the most critical components, in that it collects and sorts the data into usable business information. The host computer can be setup with the capability to analyze the incoming data and using different software/legacy systems make instantaneous decisions on the incoming RFID data. An example of this type of decision making would be 21 n‘ 1 W35. [Intro 1 [0 57.1!? l. AmlD ( goi g 2110 physical of ling". iii: mare it. ill Wt’fila, W g/a/Jal i am is ' MM 3. mm” ”(an inventory replenishment when an order is shipped or produced, this would include ordering the goods from a supplier when those goods are taken from storage. There are many software and middleware computer applications available from a score of companies. The application software is based on the Linux, enterprise resource planning (ERP), warehouse management system (WMS) and other application software used to run business operations. The computer and software aspect of the RF ID implementation plan is often over looked by businesses in the initial planning stages and it is one of the most critical components to achieving the benefits of an RFID system. Electronic Product Code (EPC) The Electronic Product Code (EPC) is a recently developed numbering standard to share information encoded on RFID tags. This coding scheme was developed by the Auto-ID Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and is part of an on going effort to develop an EPC network. The network is being developed to take physical objects (products) and connect them to computers, thus creating an “internet of things”. This network not only entails the hardware that RFID systems run on but network software and protocols, as well as languages for describing objects in ways computers can understand. To make this network valuable to all companies, MIT developed it as an open, global network much like the Internet. The premise of this system is that the information is stored on a network and EPC number serves as a reference to that location. Thus the EPC is an address (much like a domain address on the Internet) that tells a computer where it should go to find information on the product. 1105. “ll: “nae: details. ll 311’: main aides ill Mt The actual EPC, encoded on the RFID circuit, is a number made up of a header and three sets of data: the EPC manager, the object class and the serial number. The header identifies the version number of the EPC, allowing for different types and lengths of EPCs, thus allowing for the future expansion of the numbering scheme. A closer look at the version numbers and what they mean will be discussed later in this section. The first part of the EPC identifies the EPC manger, in all likelihood the product manufacturer. The second part is called the object class and refers to the type of product, usually the Stock Keeping Unit (SKU). The third is the serial number, which is unique to each item produced (MIT 2002). The EPC has many different versions based on the length of the code, communication methods and the capabilities of the tag. Common lengths for EPCs that have been developed thus far are 64, 96- and 256-bits; with the 96-bit code being the most widely used. In this numbering scheme, the header will consist of 8-bits, the EPC Manager 28-bits, the Object Class 24-bits and the Serial Number 36-bits, see Figure 2 for details. This 96-bit code will provide individual identifiers for 268 million companies; each manufacturer can have 16 million object classes and 68 billion serial numbers in each class (MIT 2002). Ul-DUUDAB‘I- UflflllaF-DUULE‘IDCD Header EPC Manager Object Class Serial Number 8-bits 28-bits 24-bits 36—bits Figure 2: Standard 96-bit EPC Code (MIT 2002) 23 Pin Pins.» “0le < Prise. \ 001.“ 006 c: (Ciel. not ii “857 will I). Wilton W}?! Com EPC tags are broken down into classes and versions based on the tag capabilities md communication protocols (how the tag and reader share information). Table 1 shows he classification scheme for UHF EPC version 1 communication protocols. Version 1 is he original designation of tags and communication protocols. W Quasi-3.1m WW I Active, Field Programmable Tag, Class 4 Read/W rite Chip emi-Passive, Field Programmable Tag, Class 3 Read/Write Chip Passive, Field Programmable Tag, Class 2 / Class 0+ Class 2 = Class 1 Protocol, Class 0+ = Read/Write Chip Class 0 Protocol TPassive, Field Programmable Tag, Class 1 Class 1 Protocol VORM Chip (Write Once Read Many Passive, Factory Programmable Tag Class 0 Class 0 Protocol Table l: EPC Version 1 Breakdown As EPC standards evolve, this classification scheme will move toward having Ll y one communication protocol, maximizing the tags operating capabilities on a global tel, not just in the U.S. This version will be called Version 2. In Version 2, Class 0 gs’ will no longer be compliant as this communication protocol will no longer fall der the standard. Class 1 tags will be compliant but they will communicate using the dated communication protocol. Tags in the Class 1 category will still be passive, wever now they may be field or factory programmed (Wal-Mart 2004). 24 .13; Tris star: titted 2 andbtad flit/treat Melts Yasmin Wm “hertz/m Wm 1'. RFID Tag Orientation Problems The orientation of the tag and the reader/antennae system is an area that is highly disputed between system manufacturers, researchers and those implementing the technology. With RFID being new in the field of supply chain management the affect this orientation may create on tag readability, will have consequences on the way goods are packaged and shipped. The majority of manufacturers say that tag orientation has no affect on read range and tag readability. As one industry white paper explains, “Because no line of site is required, RFID-tagged objects can be read in different orientations at very high speeds. Orientation sensitivity depends on the antenna design and the amount of interference that is present. In some environments tags may be read in any orientation. This gives product and package designers tremendous flexibility in tag placement options, and eliminates the need for human intervention to scan labels or to ensure items are placed properly for reading in conveyor belt or retail checkout applications” (Intermec 2003). This statement is very broad and skirts around the subject, saying that in some cases it is affected and some cases it is not. In contrast, Dr. Robb Clarke, Associate Professor at Michigan State University and head of the MSU RFID Lab, in a presentation at the Smart Labels USA 2004 Conference states, “RFID tags at the 915MHz frequency are orientation sensitive. Tags parallel to the center of a portal system and tags perpendicular to the center of a portal system have unique read ranges” (Clarke 2004). Exploratory research has found that RFID tags are orientation sensitive, regardless of the surroundings. The effect of tag orientation on readability is very controversial and relatively biased depending on the source of the information. 25 According to an RFID testing center, tag placement has emerged as an important tor in every pilot conducted so far; according to Joe J iner, logistics and RF ID Jelopment at The Kennedy Group, “On a case of liquid product, we’ll test six areas rere we can place a tag, and only one or two of those might give a best read” (Albright 04). Tag placement/orientation is critical to the effectiveness of an RF ID system and hi t” lead to better results. Another article explains there are physics involved with FID not yet determined, such as tag type and format, orientation of the antenna and the >cationlorientation of the label on a box, case or pallet for optimal readability (Murphy ,004). The impact of tag orientation may play a pivotal role in the implementation of RFID and the location of tags on pallets, cases of product and individual items coming into and out of retail outlets, distribution centers and manufacturing plants. This leads to the first hypothesis: the orientation of the RFID tag on the package will have no effect on the readability of the transponders. RF Interference Issues When implementing RF ID systems it is critical to consider radio fiequency interference issues, which can be caused by a number of materials. Interference in communication is defined as: “anything which alters, modifies, or disrupts a message; as it travels along a channel, between a source and a receiver” (W ikipedia 2004). It is widely known that metal and water have a detrimental affect on the operation and use of radio waves. Metal reflects radio waves while water absorbs radio waves making these two materials very difficult to use around and with RF ID systems (Kambil 26 2002). Many products falling under RFID mandates contain metal and water, and LOlUtiODS to make RFID systems work in their presence are not currently known or ommercially available. The quantified effect that these products have on RFID systems 3 also not documented. Products with high water content included in this category are hampoo, soft drinks, juices, fruits and vegetables to name a few. Products containing i gh metal content or metal within their packages may cause problems with RFID ystems. Products and packages in this category include: aerosol cans (deodorant, airspray, shaving cream), some detergents, foil seals, metal/aluminum bins and totes. he effect of product on RFID transponder readability leads to three hypotheses in this :search: 0 The product contained in the package will not have an effect on the readability of the RFID transponders, 0 Cases containing products made up of water will have lower read rates than those cases containing waterless products 0 All waterless products will have the same rate of readability. RFID testing that has been conducted on these types of products and is available :ludes testing conducted by Hewlett-Packard, Gillette and BP Castrol. Hewlett- .ckard has been able to overcome the problems associated with water and metal in their r cartridges by changing the orientation in which they were packed (Murphy 2004). llette has run RFII) pilots, at the case and item level, with their razorblades for the etro Group with mixed success (Sliwa 2004). RFID testing has been done by HP strol on its GTX 5—quart container of motor oil with results depending on location of 27 the tags relation to the lubricant in the bottles (Miller 2004). Although information is available, the results of the testing are not quantifiable and are highly speculative. A graduate student at Michigan State University’s School of Packaging conducted research on the performance of RFID transponders ability to read through refrigerated and frozen beef loin muscle. The research found that the tags performed successfully when reading through fiozen beef and were unsuccessful when reading through refrigerated beef (Onderko 2004). Thus showing liquid water is a problem area. There are many other factors that can cause interference which are not addressed by this research. The effect of packaging and packaging materials on RFID systems is not widely known or publicized. Everything from packaging materials and stretch wrap to packaging additives may have an effect on the readability of RFID tags. However since this area is so new in this arena, little research has been done in these areas. RFID tracking of reusable plastic containers, totes and pallets is being conducted by CHEP; Trenstar is tracking kegs of beer and AIS is tracking metal carts for flowers all using RFID (Albright 2004). The technology is being used with a variety of packaging materials however little information is available about the efficiency of the RF ID systems being used. Rick Fox president and CEO of Fox IV Technologies, notes the following, “The ftmctionality of the RFID tag will change based on the position of the tag on the container, the type of product in the container, the pallet packaging configuration and the power of the tag reader” (F errante 2004). Until further researched, the effect these variables have on RFID systems will remain the proprietary knowledge of the leading companies implementing RFID, which will not help the technology on a whole grow and succeed. 28 Interference with RF 1D systems go beyond packaging materials and product )roperties. Operating systems and other wireless communication devices in a facility can :reate RF noise and interrupt the ability of RFID tags and readers to communicate properly. These systems may include wireless communication on handheld scanners, cell phones, robots and/or computers. Operating equipment such as conveyors, fork trucks, filling and sealing equipment can also have negative effects on the operation of an RFID system. In hospitals, different electromagnetic interference becomes a major issue; with the inability for certain systems to work along side each other coherently. The effect of static discharge on tags is not widely known and could lead to an inability of tags to read. RF ID tags are also affected by the speed at which they pass through the read field. The faster a tag travels through the field the less likely it is going to be read. Multiple RFID readers, antennae and tags in an area can have an adverse affect on the systems operating correctly; this phenomenon is known as collision. Alien Study One study that was once publicly available concerning UHF RF ID tag readability was done by systems manufacturer Alien Technology, based out of Morgan Hill, California between February 26 and 28, 2002. The RFID hardware utilized in this study were Alien Class 1 emulator tags, Alien readers and several different antennae configurations. The hardware used in this study were prototype pieces, not actual working models available today. The testing was conducted at a Wal-Mart distribution center in Bentonville, Arkansas. The testing conducted looked at tag readability and redrmdancy under a variety of conditions, including: cases and pallets tagged, location of 29 tagged cases, antenna type, antenna position, tag orientation on case tag-antenna range/proximity (different read ranges), angle of tag plane to antenna (case orientation to antenna), number of tags in field, tag movement (speed through portal), tag reading challenges (through cases and products), and RF interference (wireless computer and other RFID equipment). The results of this testing were very encouraging with a very high percentage of tag reads regardless of the variables. It was concluded that tag orientation and case orientation had very little affect on readability. Liquid and metal products had some affect on tag readability when facing away from the antenna but “could be worked around”. In summary, the study concluded that RFID tag readability would not be affected by the variables listed above. However, this is a very limited test and further research needs to be conducted (Alien Technology 2002). There are good reasons to question the validity of the Alien Research. The number of tests for each variable was not disclosed in the paper and so the statistical relevance of the test is uncertain. The testing was conducted by Alien on Alien products, and was set up to give favorable results, and it did: 100% reads independent of the majority of variables. In particular the study did not look at tags embedded in the center of problematic materials, which represents the greatest challenge with using RFID for tagging products. The objective of the test was to come up with a best case scenario to show that the technology had merit and was “feasible”. However, this is not a feasible solution when trying to implement RFID in a working/production environment. It is not always possible to “work around” these variables when manufacturing, distributing or receiving 30 goods. The testing Alien did was relevant and on the right track, however the results are highly skewed to show a technology that is beyond its true capabilities in a production environment. Relevance The research conducted in this thesis is highly relevant to a number of the issues discussed. It continues in the same direction as the Alien testing with a non-biased third party look at the technology. The operation frequency in this research is 915MHz because of the requirements set forth by major retailers. As Michigan State University’s Ken Boyer explains, “Everybody will be watching Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart and its suppliers will hit a lot of bumps in the road and there are a lot of steps between how it should work and how it works now” (Buttery 2004). This research looks at how the technology currently works and quantifies the effects of tar orientation and RF interference due to products. 31 CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY Equipment Used The testing for this thesis took place at the Auto ID lab in the School of Packaging chigan State University. The RFID system used in this research was provided by ics Inc. of Columbia, Maryland. This system utilizes radio frequency waves in the VII-12 region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The tags used for this research are 1pliant with the Electronic Product Code (EPC) Class 0 data protocol. The system l part numbers are outlined below: Matrics Evaluation System (PN: EKT-OOl) Matrics Stationary Reader (PN: RDR-OOI) o Matrics Tags (PN: X1020-LBL) - 48 Matrics General Purpose Antennae (PN: ANT-001) - system setup using 4 antennae Software: Matrics Tag Tracker 3.0.1 Host Computer: Dell Inspiron 2500 laptop computer Computer - Reader connection: Serial port connection Reader - Antennae connection: Coaxial cables (incoming on bottom connector, outgoing on top connector of antennae) The setup for this system was intended to represent a portal system around a common dock door. To do this, a wood frame portal was constructed, with two antennae 32 mounted on each side, above and below. See Figure 3 for this setup. The bottom of the two lower antennae (antennae 1 and 3) are mounted 1%” off the ground. The bottom of the two upper antennae (antennae 2 and 4) are mounted 48'/2” off the ground. Figure 3:Matrics Four Antennae Portal Set-up Procedure for Orientation and Product Effect on Tag Readability The testing conducted in this area was done by setting the portal to 102 inches from the fiont of one antenna to the front of the antenna on the opposite side. This represents a common dock door. The Matrics reader was mounted in a centered position above the portal see arrow in Figure 4. A standard Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) 48” X 40” wood pallet was used for all case-level testing. Regular Slotted Containers (RSCs) for this research Figure 4: Interrogator Location 33 were made of standard 42-26—42 C-flute corrugated board. The RSCs had outside dimensions of 13L” X 12W” X 10D”. The cases were constructed using ArtiosCAD with the Artios table to create the blanks, using hot melt glue to adhere the manufactures joint. The cases were then erected and taped using standard 2” packaging tape. RFID tags were validated to ensure they were working properly by putting the tags in the read field and observing if the tags read, or not. The tags were numbered 1 to 48 and the Matrics software was set up to match a given tags factory programmed EPC number with a certain tag number. This was done by double clicking on the tag number in the Tag Tracker 3.0.1 program and typing in the designated tag name. Tags were then mounted on the cases 2” over and 2” down from the case top, along the manufacturers’ joint on the longest side of the case. This was used for the following orientation positions: facing in, facing out and facing forward. See Figure 5 for the tag location. For top and bottom orientations, RF ID tags were mounted on the cases 2” over from the width side and 2” over from the length side of the case, being located on the top or the bottom of the case depending on the orientation required. See Figure 6 for the tag location. Tags were adhered to the cases using standard 2” masking tape. Figure 5: Tag on side of case Figure 6: Tag on top ofcase The tagged cases were placed on the pallet using a block pallet pattern, see Figure 7. This allowed for 12 cases per tier, 4 tiers high, making 48 the total number of cases per pallet. For all tests, each case was given a designated tag based on its position on the pallet. This number did not change throughout testing. See Figure 7 for tag and case location in the pallet pattern. Tier 4 Outside Row 2 Middle Row Outside Row 1 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Figure 7: Pallet Pattern and Case Location 35 This research utilized the pallet pattern described above; however, for the ientation of tags facing forward, the cases were arranged with the 13” side of the case ong the 40” side of the pallet. In all other orientations the 13” side of the case was rcated along the 48” side of the pallet. All trials were conducted with cases on the pallet unitized using a single layer of retch wrap. Stretch wrapping was done by hand utilizing a hand stretch wrapper made y Highlight Industries, Incorporated. The stretch wrap material was a linear low density olyethylene-low density polyethylene blend of blown stretch film with an original sickness of 0.8mils. The film was made by Intertape. One pallet truck was utilized throughout these experiments, the 2002 ELE 45 - 27 L 48 made by the Multition MIC Corp, see Figure i. This pallet truck had a top speed of tpproximately 3.5 miles per hour. This speed was Ierified through speed trials held at the Michigan State University School of Packaging. When conducting the tests in this research, the pallet truck, facing forward, was brought to full smd Figure 8: Pallet Jack before entering the RFID systems read field. Several case/tag orientations were used for this research. The initial position utilized was with all outer row tags facing outward, this still did not allow direct line-of- sight to the middle row, see Figure 9. Cases were tested with tags facing inward, making zero cases with direct line-of—sight to the system antennae, see Figure 10. 36 Figure 9: Tags Facing Outward Figure 10: Tags Facing Inward Tags/Cases were position facing forward, allowing the column four to have direct line-of- sight with the system antennae, see Figure 11. Cases/tags facing upward was also an orientation that was utilized in the testing, this allowed for direct line-of-sight for the top tier only, see Figure 12. With cases/tags facing forward there were no tags in the direct line-of-sight of the system antennae, see Figure 13. Figure 11: Tags Facing Forward Figure 12: Tags Facing Upward 37 The cases were filled with several different products for this research. Empty cases were used in the initial phase of the testing. As explained, the cases are made of 42-26-42 C-flute corrugated board (See Figure 14). The empty cases were conditioned at standard room temperature Figure 13: Tags Facing Downward (72°F) and humidity (50%RH) for 24 hours prior to testing. Tests were run using all orientations and the cases were then rte-used for additional testing with the different products. Next, the cases were filled using the Speedy Packer: Foam-In-Bag Packaging System manufactured by the Sealed Air Corporation (Model #: SP-3 147). The . machine uses bags made of polyethylene film with other proprietary additives to enclose the foam. The foam is Figure 14: Empty Cases produced from a chemical mixture consisting of: Component A - polymeric isocyanate (contains diphenylmethane diisocyanate), Component B - polyurethane foam resin (molding foam) and solvent (tripropylene glycol and methylether). The Speedy Packer was set to produce bags with a length of 20” and a foam percent of 99%. To fill the cases, two foam-in-place (F IP) bags were produced and then immediately placed in the case to expand, see Figures 15 and 16. The case was sealed using standard packaging tape allowing the foam to completely fill the case. The 38 A VVVVVVV V Figure 16: Foam-in—Place cases were then restacked on the pallet in the correct location and orientation. Figure 15: Foam-in-Place in case After the foam-in—place testing, rice filled plastic jars were used to evaluate the readability of tags through a granular product. The exact product used in this testing was a dried rice pilaf mix with carrots weighing approximately 34 Oz. (963.88 grams). The rice was packaged in a 45 fl. Oz. (1330.81mL) square polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle, 6.113” tall and 4.015” per side with a weight of 1.97 Oz. (56 grams). The bottle was made by Captive Plastics (Mold # 6393). The closure for this bottle was polypropylene, 89mm ribbed del-top closure made by Delta Plastics, Incorporated (Model # 5376). The bottle contained an induction sealed barrier made of a paper, plastic, metal laminate. The exact materials used for the induction seal layer could not be obtained because it is proprietary information. The jars of rice were then manually placed in the test cases (outlined above) in a 3 X 3 orientation for a total of 9 bottles of rice per case, see Figures 17 and 18. There was 3%” of headspace between the tops of the rice and the top inside flap of the case. Once all cases were loaded with the rice they were retumed to the pallet in the correct location and desired orientation for testing. 39 Figure 17: Rice in PET Jar Figure 18: Rice Jars in Case Cases were then loaded with empty plastic bottles to determine the effect of PET plastic on the readability of RFID tags. The bottles used for this testing were 32 fl. Oz. (946.35mL) PET bottles produced by the QDC Plastic Container Company. The bottles were approximately 9%” tall and 3‘/2” in diameter with a weight of 1.13 Oz. (32 grams) each. The bottles used a 38mm snap screw closure made of polypropylene. The caps were produced by the International Plastics and Equipment Corporation, see Figure 19. The bottles were arranged in a 4 X 3 arrangement for a total of 12 bottles per case, see Figure 20. There was no headspace in the cases when filled with this product. Figure 19: Empty PET Bottle 40 Figure 20: PET Bottle Filled Case Figure 21: Empty vs Full Bottles Once tested, the empty bottles were filled with water and used to evaluate the effect water filled bottles have on the readability of RFID tags. The closure and bottle combination are the same as the testing described in the previous paragraph. The bottles were filled using tap water to a volume of approximately 30.77 fl. Oz. (910mL). See Figure 21 for an example of fill height. The bottles were then returned to the cases and loaded on the pallet in the correct location and desired orientation for testing. All testing was conducted using the designated products and orientations. A trial consisted of running the pallet load, at full speed, through the portal setup. The read information from the Matrics Tag Tracker 3.0.1 program was then manually loaded in Microsoft Excel. This procedure was done 25 times for every product and orientation described above. In Excel, the number of trials was along the x-axis and the tag number along the y-axis. In the table, a 1 represents a tag read and a 0 represents a no read. This was done for statistical analysis and ease in graphing the data. Several different graphs were made using the Excel program, including: a column graph and several pie charts. 41 The data was then analyzed, checked for statistical validity, and then, conclusions were drawn. 42 CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS Read Range Mapping Results The following graphs were created based on the results obtained from the read range testing while the tag was parallel to the center of the portal system. Measurements for this testing were taken every five degrees. The grid in the following pictures is laid out to represent three foot increments. Figure 22: 2D Parallel Read Range Figure 23: 1D Parallel Read Range - Top View 43 Figure 24: 3D Parallel Read Range Replica The following graphs were created based on the results obtained from the read range testing while the tag was perpendicular to the center of the portal system. Measurements for this testing were taken every five degrees. The grid in the following pictures is laid out to represent three foot increments. Figure 25: 2D Perpendicular Read Range Figure 26: 1D Perpendicular Read Range Top View 45 Figure 27: 3D Perpendicular Read Range Replica 46 Product & Orientation Effect on RFID Tag Readability Package Content - Total Reads The results listed below were collected and recorded based on total case reads and are broken out based on package content (product). In this research, there were 5 tag orientations, 48 cases per pallet and 25 trials nm for each product and tag orientation; a total of 6,000 possible reads for each product. 1. Empty cases, for all of the orientations, had a total of 5,938 reads out of 6,000 for a read rate percentage of 98.97%. 2. Foam-In-Place filled cases, for all of the orientations, had a total of 5,959 reads out of 6,000 for a read rate percentage of 99.32%. 3. Empty PET bottle filled cases, for all of the orientations, had a total of 5,956 reads out of 6,000 for a read rate percentage of 99.27%. 4. Rice filled cases, for all of the orientations, had a total of 4,836 reads out of 6,000 for a read percentage of 80.60%. 5. Water bottle filled cases, for all of the orientations, had a total of 1,501 reads out of 6,000 for a read percentage of 25.02%. Tag Orientation — Total Reads The following results were collected and recorded based on total case reads and are broken out based on package content and tag orientation. In this section there were 48 CaSes per pallet and 25 trials run for each tag orientation evaluated; a total of 1,200 possible reads. 47 1. Empty cases showed evidence that tag orientation has a role in the readability of RF ID transponders. Empty cases with tags facing outward read 1,200 times out of a possible 1,200 times for a read rate percentage of 100.00% (standard error = 0.0%). When those same cases were tested with the tags facing inward, the number of reads dropped to 1,165 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 97.08% (0.8%). With the cases positioned so the tags faced forward, the number of reads was 1,200 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 100.00% (0.0%). The number of reads when the tags were located on the top of the cases was 1,200 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 100.00% (0.0%). With the tags facing downward the number of reads was 1,173 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 97.75% (0.4%). F oam—in-place filled cases also showed evidence that tag orientation has a role in the readability of RFID transponders. Foam filled cases with tags facing outward read 1,200 times out of a possible 1,200 times for a read rate percentage of 100.00% (0.0%). When the same cases were tested with the tags facing inward, the number of reads dropped to 1,183 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 98.58% (0.4%). With the cases positioned so the tags faced forward, the number of reads was 1,200 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 100.00% (0.0%). The number of reads when the tags were located on the top of the cases was 1,200 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 100.00% (0.0%). With the tags facing 48 downward the number of reads was 1,176 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 98.00% (0.4%). . Empty bottle filled cases also showed evidence that tag orientation has a role in the readability of RFID transponders. Empty bottle filled cases with tags facing outward read 1,200 times out of a possible 1,200 times for a read rate percentage of 100.00% (0.0%). When those same cases were tested with the tags facing inward, the number of reads dropped to 1,164 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 97.00% (0.5%). With the cases positioned so the tags faced forward, the number of reads was 1,200 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 100.00% (0.0%). The number of reads when the tags were located on the top of the cases was 1,200 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 100.00% (0.0%). With the tags facing downward the number of reads was 1,192 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 99.33% (0.2%). . Cases filled with rice again showed evidence that tag orientation has a role in the readability of RFID transponders. Rice filled cases with tags facing outward read 1,160 times out of a possible 1,200 times for a read rate percentage of 96.67% (standard error = 0.4%). When those same cases were tested with the tags facing inward, the number of reads dropped to 758 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 63.17% (0.9%). With the cases positioned so the tags faced forward, the number of reads was 991 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 82.58% (0.6%). The number of reads when the tags were located on the top of the cases was 987 out of 49 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 82.25% (0.9%). With the tags facing downward the number of reads was 940 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 78.33% (1.3%). 5. Water filled cases with tags facing outward read 804 times out of a possible 1,200 times for a read rate percentage of 67.00% (0.2%). When those same cases were tested with the tags facing inward, the number of reads dropped to 10 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 0.83% (0.3%). With the cases positioned so the tags faced forward, the number of reads was 387 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 32.25% (0.6%), all of these reads were in column 4, the forward facing column on the pallet. The number of reads when the tags were located on the top of the cases was 300 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 25.00% (0%), all of the reads in these trials occurred in tier 4, the top pallet tier . With the tags facing downward the number of reads was 0 out of 1,200 for a read rate percentage of 0% (0%). For this test variable, there were no tags in the direct line-of—sight of the antennae. Package Content — Trials with 100% Reads In addition to evaluating the data collected based on total reads, the percent of trials with 100% reads was also evaluated. This means the number of trials out of 25 that had all 48 cases on the pallet read successfirlly was evaluated. The following results were collected and recorded with regard to the total number of trials across all orientation that 50 had trials with 100% reads. For each product evaluated, there were five orientations with twenty-five trials each, a total of 125 trials. 1. Empty cases across all orientations, had 100% reads for all cases on the pallet 92 out of 125 trials run; a trial read rate of 73.6%. Foam-in-place filled cases across all orientations had 100% reads for all cases on the pallet 98 out of 125 trials run; a trial read rate of 78.4%. . Empty bottle filled cases across all orientations, had 100% reads for all cases on the pallet 98 out of 125 trials run; a trial read rate of 79.2%. Rice filled cases across all orientations, had 100% reads for all cases on the pallet 4 out of 125 trials run; a trial read rate of 3.20%. Water bottle filled cases across all orientations, had 100% reads for all cases on the pallet 0 out of 125 trials run; a trial read rate of 0%, i.e. every trial had at least one no read per pallet. Tag Orientation — Trials with 100% Reads 'I'he following results were collected and recorded with regard to the number of trials having 100% reads across all orientations. The results are broken out by tag orientation. 1. Empty cases had 100% reads for all tags on the pallet, 25 out of 25 trials for tags facing outward, tags facing forward and tags facing upward. With the tags facing inward, 11 of the 25 trials had 100% reads for all tags on the pallet; a read rate of 44.00% (standard error = 9.9%). Empty cases with tags facing downward read 100% of the time 6 out of 25 trials; a read rate of 24.00% (8.5%). 51 2. F oam-in-place filled cases had 100% reads for all tags on the pallet 25 out of 25 trials for tags facing outward, tags facing forward and tags facing upward. With the tags facing inward, 14 of the 25 trials had 100% reads for all tags on the pallet; a read rate of 56.00% (9.9%). Foam-in—place filled cases with tags facing downward read 100% of the time 9 out of 25 trials; a read rate of 36.00% (9.6%). 3 - Empty bottle filled cases had 100% reads for all tags on the pallet 25 out of 25 trials for tags facing outward, tags facing forward and tags facing upward. With the tags facing inward, 7 of the 25 trials had 100% reads for all tags on the pallet; a read rate of 28.00% (8.9%). Empty bottle filled cases with tags facing downward read 100% of the time 17 out of 25 trials; a read rate of 68.00% (9.3%). 4 - Rice filled cases had 100% reads for all tags on the pallet in only one orientation, tags facing outward. All other orientations had 0 of 25 trials read successfully for all cases on the pallet. Rice filled cases with tags facing outward read 100% of the time 4 out of 25 trials; a read rate of 16.00% (7.33%). S - Filled water bottle cases had no orientations that read 100% of the tags on a pallet. The following graphs and tables represent these written results. This was created to Visually present the data in a straightforward manner. 52 bzfineeom :0 Hootm meoufieoto mam. mo Egm ”N 0309 V.@ 0 luO>< «.000 . . 0 020m .203 $00.0 $00.0 0 $00 0 $00 0 C 2.8m Em . . «03 $00 0 $00 00 $0~ 0 $00 00 .I . 0 8E . $00 0 $00 0 $00. $00 on 03 .t e 00.00 m E“. $9.. 0 $00.00 on: $00.0 ““003 m Em $0.3 $053 at e $3. 0 El): :38 c.06l O r 0 ILO> v5.0 . . 0 2:00 .255 $00.0 $00.3 00m $00.0 $00 0 mm seem . Em . 0.0 $00.09 come $00 m $00 00v 8?. $0 . . $00.0 $00.0 0 a 50 $00 0 $3 «0 0d ex 00.09 mm or. $00.0 $00.00 w 003 $w0.m {”0000 e mu Em $00.0 $00.09 00$ $ at I; 3 Call I . fl? 0 EO>< 0 000 . . 0 2:00 .202, $00.0 $088 non $00.m $00 0 mu 2:00 . Em $oo.m $00.09 009 $00 m $00 09 8E . . $00.0 $00.0 0 ex 00 0 $0.... «0 30 t En. a . a . 009. $00.0 $00.00.. mu $00 0 $00 cor nwood $00.09 mm Em $00.0 $00.09 009 a UL EOE c.0'l I v.0 o Eo>< 000 . . 020m .803 $00.0 $00.0 0e $00.0 $00. 0 m 020m Em $00.0 $00.3 v9 F $00 m $00 mm 8?. .I . ems $00.0 $00 0 0 $00 0 $5 00 t 00.00 3 En. . $00.00 on: $00 0 $ . E $0v 0 $00 a $00 3. e e m $00.0 $00.5 me. e 5 hits: '20.“. O . our o 9.030. 0 we 5 . . 0 2:00 .203 . . 30 $00 0 $00 0 ””0.ch “HMO-won“ 005 $00.“ $00.03 mm 020mg“. Em e . $5.00 09 e $00.. $00 or v $0.. 0 00.“ $00 09 mm are $00.0 $00.09 003 $ . $00.09 mm 3 Eu $000 $00? 003 $00 : IF UP 2.28 see . a 53 bzfieewom web :0 Beam 00:00.; 00 00885 ”M 030% N000 o o Eo>< $000 D $000.0 0 $000 w $000.0 0 0003:300— $.00 m $.00.mN 000 $000 0 $000 m 0 0.. 3 $.00 m $00N.N0 #00 $.00 n1. $000 w 0 0.52:0“. $000 at. $00.0 or $000 m. $000 w o 0003:. $00N 0 $000.00 .000 $000.0 $000 0 0 0.5350 E E ii 3538830.. I vIIO 0.800 .0035 N60: 0.0.. o 90>< N..0N m. $.00 .00 N0 r r $000 W $00.00 x. r 20.5ch N000 D $00.00 _. CON 0 $000 D $000.00 r mm 0. 3 N000 m. $000.00 0 OON r $000 0 $000.00 r 0N Ego“. N000 D $000.\.0 3r r $000 m $.00.0N \- 20>):— $000 0 $00.00 r OON —. $000 0 $.00 .00 r 0N 9.02630 EH .0000 0.800 EN «(.00 0.0 o Eo>< $.00. $000.05 0V0 $000.0 $000.0 0 0.0))ch $000. 0 $00N.N0 #00 $000..” $000.0 0 0.. 3 $000. 0 $000.N0 p.00 $00.." $000.0 0 Ego". $000. 0 00hr .00 00x: $000.0 $000.0 0 Eli:— $00.v. u $0h000 00—. r $000... $000.0r v 9.03030 Cello 00.! 0.—.0—._. 0.0r o 6.0).... $001.01. $000.00 00 r r $000 w $000.00 0 0003ch $000.0 $000.00 r OON r $.00 D $000.00 r 0N n... 3 $000 .0 $000 .00 r DON _. $.00 m $.00 .00 r 0N Pizcon. $0ov.o $.00 .00 00 r _. $000 0 $000.00 1 r 0.035 $000.0 $000.00 r OON r $60.0 0000.00 _. 0N Den-2530 OOOIO En. 0N0: v.0r 0 Eo>< N00? .10 $00h.k0 0n. r r $03.0 $000.VN 0 0.95ch N000 at... $000.00 0 DON r $000 0 $000 .00 _. 0N U. D N000 D $00.00 r 00N r $.00 n1. $000.00 r 0N 0.03.0“. N000 m $000.\.0 00—. r $000 w $000.3 r r 0003:. gill; 8m. .08... 08.8. en 9850 8:... Eu The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing empty cases with the tags on those cases facing out. Empty Cases - Tags Facing Out 1 Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read 100% Figure 28: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Out - Trials Reads vs. No Reads Empty Cases - Tags Facing Out Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags No Read 0% Read 100% Figure 29: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Out - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 55 633.0on «ma—8200 30m - “.3380 wfiomm mwmh £8.00 bqfim ”om 8:me . i I. 0 _ .0850 so 0 i mumom oz$m nan—8:2 an... _ .0nmmwwnwmmmmmmwmawmwuumuwu wmmmummmmuumeeLQSVSZT fl .00 M _ $2 _ M $8 w u 0.8 m 9 $8 m a so... 00.0 $8 m. 3 J 0.2 m z 9 #8 m. a. $8 0 $8. 223:0 0500”. mam... - emmo baEm . 1 Empty Cases - Tags Facing Out 1 % of N_O_ Reads for the Whole Pallet * broken down by Tier 1 i There were zero No-reads for this scenario ITier MES-$1 a Tier Number 2 1 0 Tier Number 3 1. Tier Number 4“ Figure 31: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Out - Percentage of No Reads by Tier 1 Empty Cases - Tags Facing Out 1 % of [19 Reads for the Whole Pallet ‘ broken down by Row There were zero No-reads for this scenario f—_ _ ___ E__ ___— Outslde Row 1 I Middle Row 1 leggy... Figure 32: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Out - Percentage of No Reads by Row 1 ___ ___ , Empty Cases - Tags Facing Out I % of N2 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column / There were zero No-reads for this scenario 3 Column 2 El Column 3 Column 3 : Figure 33: Cases, Tags Facing Out - Percentage of No Reads by Column l I ___‘._ _J 57 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing empty cases with the tags on those cases facing in. ‘ Empty Cases - Tags Facing In 1 Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read . Figure 34: Empty Cases, Tags Facing In - Trial Reads vs. No Reads \ - . . "7 , . a . Empty Cases - Tags Facing In 1 Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags Figure 35: Empty Cases, Tags Facing In - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 58 €503.0on owfleoouom 08M - 0.335 memoam 33. £800 508m 6m 2:me .Bomsxu 2.03.0200! wnwwwmawm .3832 an... wnwxnmmwmuuuwufluuwummummuuuumGSLQQVEZL 203:. 9:00“. was... . memmo 3920 $0 $9. $8 $8 $9. $9.... $00 $05 $8 $00 $8 _. emu sz .10; speeu ;o ebuuemed 59 Empty Cases - Tags Facing In % of the 35 N2 Reads for the Whole Pallet 1 broken down by Tier Tier 4 3% Tier 1 1 Tier 30 / [/5 20% .v,* _M mg 23% \\ / ITIer Number 1 a Tier Number 2 Tier 2 DTiel' Number 3 54% Tier Number 4 1 - 0*, n. A, -___ . 4: Figure 37: Empty Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads by Tier Empty Cases - Tags Facing In I % of the 35 L42 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Row 1 rOutside Row 1 . / 9% 1 f “___41 Outside Row 2 Outsnde Row 1 57% I Middle Row - 000012 Figure 38: Empty Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads by Row ' “ ' _l Empty Cases - Tags Facing In % of the 35 _N_Q_ Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column Column 4 11% Column 3 x __ ___ _. 11% \ \ ICqumn 1 h flColumn 2 , DColumn 3 . Column 2 / 1 Column 1 1 - a. ICol m 4 1 6% 72% nwLn_- Figure 39: Empty Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads by Column 60 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing empty cases with the tags on those cases facing forward. .— __ _. __..__ _ . _ __—__._ _— —, Empty Cases - Tags Facing Forward 1 Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read 1 1 Figure 40: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Trial Reads vs. No Reads 0*-“ gun—.0” hm... h-,'m~h ’ 5 ~._ ‘ 7 .__‘ 1 Empty Cases - Tags Facing Forward Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags 1 No Read 0% Figure 41: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 61 852.0320 omfieoeom gem - €03.80 wcmoem mwmh .880 .0080 ”N0 oSmE . a§ms$u A. Eomoz$I1L ::w 03:52 on... :0 mm mmnmme mauumwfluuwmmmummnuuumGBLQSv87.... Emacs". uses". an... . mammo bnEm 0\00—. M $8 w m $8 w 09. m... 0 m. 6 0\00m 8 $8 a. a. $2. u 9 $8 .1... a q $8 $8. 62 ; Empty Cases - Tags Facing Forward ‘* % of Q Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier There were zero No-reads for this scenario fir Number ‘1‘}: a Tier Number 2 i ‘ ' :1 Tier Number 3 1 gnTIer Number4l . -, .~ 7 ,. ___) Figure 43: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Percentage of No Reads by Tier — 1 Empty Cases - Tags Facing Forward i % of & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Row There were zero No-reads for this scenario 1 Outside Row 1 7‘ r I Middle Row L I Outside Row 2 -__ -___-____ _. MM-.. -~_ .m ___ _ - J Figure 44: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Percentage of No Reads by Row ! " "1 . Empty Cases - Tags Facing Forward i J % of 19 Reads for the Whole Pallet L broken down by Column 1 l 1 There were zero No-reads for this scenario iColumn 1’1 . I Column 2 t l3 Column 3 ‘ Column 4 Figure 45: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Percentage of No Reads by Column 63 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing empty cases with the tags on those cases facing up. Empty Cases - Tags Facing Up Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read ‘ ‘ \ Empty Cases - Tags Facing Up ‘ Total % of Roads (1200) for all Trials and Tags i No Read Figure 47: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Up- Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 850335 uwficoeom 39m - €8an mfioam ,0me .0080 qum ”we Bawi 080m 8 $ni m 0 80m 2 mm. .3532 as... mamawwawmmm&mmnmmwmuRawafluuwmmmummnuu ll $0 7 _ l _ OSSLQSVSZl _ _ o\oo _. ,_ a 0.2 m m o\oom B O 0 $9. u B 5 $8 a $8 a. «0.. $2. n. 9 $8 m m. $8 9 _ $8? ‘ .823: 9:28“. mum... . mommo bnEm N 65 m- ___ Empty Cases - Tags Facing Up 1 % of 59 Reads for the Whole Pallet 1 broken down by Tier 1 There were zero No-reads for this scenario F jI Tler Number 1 la Tier Number 2 [Cl Tier Number 3 an Tier Number 4i! Figure 49: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Tier Empty Cases - Tags Facing Up % of & Reads for the Whole Pallet ‘ broken down by Row ! There were zero No-reads for this scenario 1 iEuEe EevTi I Middle Row I Outside Row 2.-., _, _. g _.‘ m_. _ _. ___, A __ .- ~ A—_ _’ _ _ _1 Figure 50: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Row ___—“___wm- _ _ _, Empty Cases - Tags Facing Up % of fl Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column There were zero No-reads for this scenario IColumn 1 8 Column 2 ElColumn 3 IColumn 4 Figure 51: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Column 66 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing empty cases with the tags on those cases facing down. Empty Cases - Tags Facing Down Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read Figure 52: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Down - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Empty Cases - Tags Facing Down Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags Figure 53: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Down - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 67 850385 owficoobm 30M - UBBEOQ mfioem mwah .830 qum #m onE fl. 08053:... _esemez$t .onEaz an... Saw”wan.wwwmmwawmmwwuuawauaawmmmummumuumsezggvez.. Hui—.32.... mEomu. mam... - mom—mo bnEm $0 $3 $8 $8 $0? $8 $8 $3. $8 $3 .xbo _. spy; 9; 10], speeu Bel ro ebmuemed 68 Empty Cases - Tags Facing Down % of the 27 _N_Q Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier ! Tier 3 0% Tier 2. 0% ITier Number 1 3 Tier Number 2 EITier Number 3 ,\ Tier 1 STjer__Number 4__ \ 100% Figure 55: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads by Tier ___- _4 Middle Row/-0 41% .‘ Empty Cases - Tags Facing Down % the 27 of & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Row Outside Row 2 4% 063855;? I Middle Row I Outside M3 ’VVWV" W W e ./ Outside Row 1 55% Figure 56: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads by Row "" T 7 Empty Cases - Tags Facing Down % of the 27 [59 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column Column 4 0% Column 1 l. 15% _ H \ IColumn 1 IColumn 2 /, \Commn 2 DCOIUle 3 00mm 3 22% IColumn 44 63% Figure 57: Empty Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads by Column 69 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing foam filled cases with the tags on those cases facing out. Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out | Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read 1 100% i 1 Figure 58: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Trial Reads vs. No Reads , Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out 1 Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags Figure 59: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 70 .5638on omficoocom 98m - @8350 wfiomm 0m“; .8080 85E Egon ”ow onE 08$. .6 $ 0 .. .8005. MP. 66.5.: 8» mnwmwmawme ”an mmwmmn ::a% :: M6 mu .. . exec Irlrlvlrlvlr SVSZPOBQLQQ'EZIV 9t — — . £60.. 0 $ou . $8 0 $ov 0mmmmmmmwm mmmmm imiummnmmm m_- 0mm”; mm mammmfl$8 12x60 .QoOh {£600 ro\oom r$oov 295:0 mafia”. mush . mommo uo=E Econ. slay; gz .lo; speeu lo efiaueoled 71 Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out 1 % of & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier WW lITier Number 1 I Tier Number 2 DTier Number 3 1.- “2mm. Figure 61: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Percentage of No Reads per Tier Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out 1 % of 19 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Row WW 1 l ’Ichsldfiaele ' I Middle Row Igteta'olzaavg -_ -___.__..._-.__.~___..__.___.-*l Figure 62: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Percentage of No Reads per Row __5 -“Mh------_.._,_.___- ‘W I Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out % of N_O_ Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column i WWW—mam 9 {€08.35 .3 Column 2 El Column 3 [I Column 4 Figure 63: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out-Percentage of No Reads per Column 72 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing foam filled cases with the tags on those cases facing in. _ _ ”_W_._ _ W ___._ ._. _. 1 Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing In Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read No Read 44% Figure 64: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Trial Reads vs. No Reads ___ ~ ._ ; __ _________fl- _.____,._- » v_ *1 l Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing In . Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags Figure 65: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 73 85638on omega—8Com 98M - c835 wamomm 33. .3me 35m Each new onE momma 8 $0 t. ”team 02 0*. I tr V L may»0MuwMfimmmenmmmmm 00L ’/o00l 7.00; _ - $60M 'leOOL ‘loOOL %00l- $60M _ fl J.‘ l 9600i 9600i _ 9600i 9600; Z 8 33:52 on... a Z I. z 9 z 7 i» 'loOOl ll} F ."l 9696 . . ‘LA. m I an I 35% 9696 - r J" I 4 an I %00l I? 68‘99'82lr P + W. I! L IV“ 5600i 9600i ‘llt %00l 295:. 9:08". mum... - mommo po=E Enou— mm e\eo o\oo_. fieow $8 $0? e\eom $om o\oOh $8 $8 exeoo F slay; 9; do; speeu go efimuezued 74 Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing In % of the 17 & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier Tier 4 Tier 3 0% Tier 1 12% 24% iTier Number 1 ITier Number 2 1DTier Number 3 1 Tier 2 1BTier Number 4 1 - 7 64%.- , 1 Figure 67: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads by Tier Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing In 1 % of the 17 & Reads for the Whole Pallet 1 broken down by Row Outside Row 2 Middle Row, 0% 1 24% ' , ,, .f, , , 7 Outsrde Row 1 W Outside Row 1 'Middle Row 76% 1°P£9d£R°1V 2, Figure 68: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads by Row Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing In % of the 17 & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column Column 4 Column 3 o o 1 0 4: Column 1 12 /o \ o - - - - 2 35 A I Column 1 I Column 2 1E] Column 3 1 1' 90'9"? 5 Column 2 1 53% Figure 69: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads by Column 75 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing foam filled cases with the tags on those cases facing forward. Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read No Read 0% Figure 70: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward — Trial Reads vs. No Reads Faom Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags Figure 71: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 76 1 1 850385 omega—38m Bum - c8305 memoem $3. .0680 35m 8.8m ”Nb gamma . 080ms$n__ .0eeemez$I .3252 an... wuwwwmawmammmxnmnmmamaufiuuawwmmummnmuumserssvszr. Emzcon. mEomn. mam... - .0630 “32:“. Soon. $0 $9. $om $om $ov $00 $oo $2. $0» $8 $8.. em: 1, gz .lo; speeu go aberueored 77 Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward % of & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier There were gero No-reads for this scenario Elia—Number 1” a Tier Number 2 I 11:! Tier Number 3 l 1 1 , Tier Number 4 Figure 73: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward-Percentage of No Reads per Tier 1 Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward % of :12 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Row 1 There were zero No-reads for this scenario , _J 1 1. Outside Row 1 I Middle Row I Outside Row 2 1 Figure 74: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Percentage of No Read per Row — 7 1 Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward % of & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column There were zero No-reads for this scenario 1 . rIWCaumn 1 1 1 IColumn 2 El Column 3 IColumn 4 , 1 1 Figure 75: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Percentage of No Read per Column 78 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing foam filled cases with the tags on those cases facing up. 1 Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up 1 Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read Figure 76: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags No Read Figure 77 : Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 79 85038on owfieoeom gem - banana memomm mwflr .0980 32E 88m ”an 2:me 1| 88ms$o 08$. oz $I 39:52 on... mumwwwawmmmmmmnunwmauamuuuawmm Ir 8 Ir 2 .I' IV Iv oeglggve-CIV 2min: uses". was... . mommo pea“. Enou— $0 $0.. $om $0M $ov $om $om $05 $8 $8 $8 _. slug 1, 9; .lo; speea lo efimueoled 80 1 Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up ) % of 39 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier There were zero No-reads for this scenario {ITier Number 1 3 Tier Number 2 1:] Tier Number 3 '8 Tier Number 41 Figure 79: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Tier _1 Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up % of fig Reads for the Whole Pallet 1 broken down by Row There were zero No-reads for this scenario Outside ESwT I Middle Row 1 1I Outside Row 2 Figure 80: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Row Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up I % of Q Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column There were zere No-reads for this scenario 1 I Column“ 5 a Column 2 [J Column 3 19 Column 41 Figure 81: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Column 81 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing foam filled cases with the tags on those cases facing down. ‘1 Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down 1 Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read Figure 82: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags No Read 1 Figure 83: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 82 856335 60903.60 08% .. 0838500 0580 0mg. .0880 02:0 880 “em 0305 08em60wu . fmummmozwwllg LCD—:52 OFF . -l -1111 ‘ ,m”WW.WW.awmmmmxflfimmwmauumflfluawwmmummumUHmGBLQSVCZL _ A _ $0 $2 . _ $8 a m <8 m 0 m <8 0 m... 8 $8 a $8 m. J 2 $0» Ala. w. $8 fl $8 $2: w. .9. caisson. 0520". was... . mommo to..."— Each. 83 Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down % of the 24 & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier Tier 3 0% 1 1 Tier 2* 1 _Tier 4 . 0% \- .7 .. 1 . ”0"” 0% 3 Tier Number 1 a Tier Number 2 1‘3 Tier Number 3 , Tier Number 4 Tier 1 " . 100% 1 Figure 85: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads per Tier % of the 24 33 Reads for the Whole Pallet Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down 1 1 broken down by Row 1 Outside Row 2 0% _ OUtSlde Row 1 ) ~1- 0 (SFside RowT I Middle Row I Outside Row _2. Middle Row] 54% Figure 86: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads per Row Foam Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down % of the 24 32 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column Column 4 0% ,0 Cdumn 1 ,./ 13% . ___ I Column 1 1 Column 3_ Col 1 45% a umn 2 : \ E] Column 3 \ ‘ ~~ Column 2 1B Column 4 1___ - _- 1 Figure 87: Foam Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads per Column 84 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing rice filled cases with the tags on those cases facing out. Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read Read 16% Figure 88: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out 1 Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags 1 Figure 89: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 85 S0385 owficoocom Boy— - c.8380 wcmoam mwmh .330 3:5 3E 5a 0.5me _, 3313.30 . n 85.2....- f .3832 an... n a o .7, .7 '.'" aLm9»ezlommmmmnmnmmauaunnunwmmmummnuuumeszssreal $0 $0— $8 $00 $3 $3 $00 $2 $8 $3 $00 _. w. m 225:0 mEomu. mam... . momma 35". 35. slay; sz :0; specs Be], go efimuemed Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out 1 % of the 40 fl Reads for the Whole Pallet ‘ broken down by Tier Tier 3 1 Tier 4 1 3% 0% 1 Tier 2 ‘ITier Number 1 1 38% 7 ' ~ flTier Number2 7 Tie: 1 ‘L'ITier Number 3 59 6 Tier Number 4 1 Figure 91: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Percentage of No Reads per Tier 1 Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out “lo of the 40 N2 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Row Outside Row 1 Outside Row 2 1 0% 0% ‘ lbfitsideiRow' 1 I Middle Row 1l9utside Row 2 iddle Row 100% C Figure 92: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Percentage of No Reads per Row Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out °/o of the 40 _NQ Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column 1 Column 4 . Column 1 1 1 15% \ 13% 1,7, , , 1 1 1 IColumn 1 1 a Column 2 Column 2 EIColumn 3 / 28% Column 4 1 Columns, :7,” 1 44% Figure 93: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Percentage of No Reads per Column 87 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing rice filled cases with the tags on those cases facing in. Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing In Percentage of 25 Trials with at Least 1 No-Read Read 0% No Read 1 100% 1 1 1 Figure 94: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing In Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags : Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 88 €503.»on omfieooeom gum - c555 memoem mama. ,momeo voEm 8E 6m 0.5m:— m ”Rom Sewn W seam 02 mm, 1 53:52 on... v mmewanwwwnmwmnaawmauawawuawwmmummnuu LL Iv ounce/_Oen!7nsu7uir n ESE... 9.65... was... . mommo 62:“. 3E $0 $2 o\oou o\oom .xbv 80m $00 $05 $8 $8 $09 sum; 9; Jo; speeu Bel go sBauezued 89 Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing In % of the 442 & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier Tier 4 1 Tier 3 0% Tier 1 1 27% 40% 1. Tier Number 1 1 II Tier Number 2 1 ‘ElTier Number 3 1 1 Tier Number 4 1 Tier 2 I 7 A 33% Figure 97: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads per Tier Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing In % of the 442 & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Row Outside Row 1 8% 1 Outside Row 2 1 11 46% \ 1.6m; Row? 1I Middle Row Middle ROW IOutside Row 24 1 46% T' i i 172, — 7 if i 7 , 7 ,, 27,, 2 winning, Figure 98: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads per Row Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing In % of the 442 E Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column Column 4 Column 1 22% 24" 30311?an I Column 2 [:1 Column 3 Column 3 Column 2'09'1'014, L 28% 26% Figure 99: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads per Column 90 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing rice filled cases with the tags on those cases facing forward. Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward 1 Percentage of 25 Trlals with at Least No-Read 1 Read 1 0% 1 No Read 1 100% 1 Figure 100: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward 1 Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags 1 Figure 101: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 91 850385 owfiaoocom 30M - Emerson memo—E mwah .momeo REE 32 "no“ Bum—m T .Bemsxn ,eueomezsl 1 , .onEazg... _wuwwwunwwmmmxmmmnwmuua uwuauummummnmuumseLQQVSZL 0% $2. $8 $8 $9. $8 $8 $2 e\eoo $8 e\eoo e ’ Emacs". madame”. mash... mowmo voEm 3E slay; 9: Jo; speeu Bel 5° efluuesied 92 Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward % of the 209 [fl Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier 1 33% \ /' 0% 1 1‘1 / _ II Tier Number 1 ‘ r-T'e” BT' N be 2 ___ ,/ 51% ler um r 1 ‘ 7:31;; 1 : ’ CITier Number 3 Tier 2 7 ITier Number 4-. 1 16% ” Figure 103: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Percentage of No Reads per Tier 1 Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward 1 % of the 209 119 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Row E ' R : ouwggok 0W 2 -.,_\ _Outside ROW 1 1 18% ' Outside Row 1 1 I Middle Row ' .. I Outside Row 2 5 Middle Row/'/ 72% 1 Figure 104: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Percentage of No Reads per Row Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward % of the 209 [IQ Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column Column 4 Column 31 ”r 0% 29% .\ / C0133: 1 l—ILColumn _‘l / IColumn 2 DColumn 3 IColumn 4 Column 2___,_,,/ 34% .___, ~___* __-..__.J Figure 105: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Percentage of No Reads per Column 93 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing rice filled cases with the tags on those cases facing up. Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up 1 Percentage of 25 Trials with at Least 1 No-Read Read 0% No Read 100% Figure 106: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up 1 Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags Figure 107: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads ESE—«8m 0383.6; 30% - cBBQD madam awe... .momeo “so—E 8E ”we 05mm meeemssn. ,muaomozexefl 1 39:32 a: aww.wanwmmmmmmnmnwmauuuuflauwwmmummnuu”meetssveZL w. m w .9525: 9:03. mam... . $30 62:... was". $0 $9 $3 $8 $01 $8 $om $2. e\eow e\eom exeoo F slay; 9: .log speeu he; go eBuuemed 95 1 Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up 1 % of the 213 fl Reads for the Whole Pallet 1 broken down by Tier ‘ 1 Tier 3 , Tier 4 1 21% ~_ , 0% Tier 1 7 ,, 7 1 1’ " 39% I Tier Number 1 I Tier Number 2 1 ‘ElTier Number 31 1ITier Number 4 Tier 2 ‘ ' " ’ 40% Figure 109: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Tier Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up 1 % of the 213 Q Reads for the Whole Pallet 1 1 broken down by Row 1 Outside, Row 2 Outside Row 1 1 1 9%, 14% 1Outside Rew1 . é 1. Middle Row 1 1I Outside Row 2 1 Middle Row ' ' 7" 77% 7 ,7 7 7, 7 7 1 Figure 110: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Row 1777 7 7 , ,7 7,, % of the 213 N_O_ Reads for the Whole Pallet Rice Filled Cases -Tags Facing Up 1 broken down by Column 1 1 Column 4 1 7% Column 1 [7 77 Column 37 1 ' 39% 1| Column 1 11 23% a Column 211 El Column 311 1 1G Column 11 Column 271/ 7 * 1 31% 17777 77777 777777 777777 77 7 7 777 7 7 7 7 7 7 77 7 7 7777 771 Figure 111: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Column 96 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing rice filled cases with the tags on those cases facing down. Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down . Percentage of 25 Trials with at Least 1 No-Read 1 Read 0% No Read 1 100% 1 Figure 112: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down 1 Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags 1 1 1 78% Figure 113: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 97 goes—«Em omducoouom gum - 9535909 wfiuam mash .330 FEE 8E “v: Rama 9 lmsomswm 1. I 1 11 “Box 02 x! V1 1 : 33:52 as... ”ww.99wanwmmxmxmnmnwmauuwanuawwmmummnuuHMGstss987... m m m 967 W Hui—.309 mEomn. mum... . momma no.5. 3E .80 $9 $8 $00 $9. $3 $00 $2. $00 $8 $03 slay-L gz Jo; speau 621 ;o eBmusaJed 98 Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down % of the 260 & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier 1 1 1 1 1 42% 1lTie} Number 1 1 Tier 4 Tier 3 2% Tier 1 1BTier Number 2 1 DTier Number 3 1 1ITier Number} 1 Tier 2 1 30% 1 Figure 115: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage ofNo Reads per Tier Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down 1 % of the 260 & Reads for the Whole Pallet ‘ broken down by Row 1 Outside Row 2 Outside Row 1 11% 22% 1. Outside RdvTi I Middle Row [QUtS‘diROW ,2, Middle Row 67% Figure 116: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads per Row Rice Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down | % of the 260 59 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column Column 4 13% e.\ Column 1 ~ / 26% 1 *7 W IColumn 1 IColumn 2 00%;” 3 V , ElColumn 3 0 1 8 Column 4 Column 2 L '* '* ” 1 36% 1 1,, ,72 ,7 in, ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,3 Figure 117: Rice Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads per Column 99 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing empty bottle filled cases with the tags on those cases facing out. 1 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out Percentage of 25 trials with at Least 1 No-Read Figure 118: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Trial Reads vs. No Reads 1 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trlals and Tags No Read 0% Figure 119: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 100 I I I'll Ill .lll. ll . ”Semasn , ”183. 02 xi, mummwa F|111 :Bogaam 0388.5; deem .. “$330 wcmomm mwmh .momao 85m 230m qum 59 23me 338:2 an... a”mammmmnanwmuuuwflfluuwwmmummumuumssLssvezi. $0 $0 F e\eo~ $9... $9. $8 $00 {eon $8 $8 $00? Eng-.0 @503. was... .. mommo _uo=_u_ 230m bnEm slay; 9z :0; speeu Be; ;0 efiuueaded 101 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out % of LIQ Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier There were zero No-reads for this scenario VI Tier Number 1 3 Tier Number 2 E'ITier Number 3 1 Tier Number 4 Figure 121: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Percentage ofNo Read per Tier Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out 1 % of N9 Reads for the Whole Pallet Broken down by Row 1 l 1 1 1 There were zero No-reads for this scenario _— 1 Outsidfioiii ' , LIMiddle Row I Outside Row _2 i Figure 122: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Percentage of No Reads per Row Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out % of 59 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column There were zero No-reads for this scenario ’i‘cBl‘u'rBBT aColumn 2 ElColumn 3 L Column 44 Figure 123: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Percentage of No Reads per Column 102 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing empty bottle filled cases with the tags on those cases facing in. Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing In 1 1 Percentage of 25 Trials with at least 1 No-Read 1 72% Figure 124: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Trial Reads vs. No Reads | 1 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing In 1 Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags No Read 97% Figure 125: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 103 8503395 umficoouom gum - uBBE wfigm wash .3me FEE 030m imam 63 earn esomasnw 38¢..le . Loggia: _wnwwwan.»wannwmnmnwmuuauguuawwmmummnuuumsszgscmL o axe $9 a $8 a e u $8 .w. a 0 $9. .9 u. Awow 5 o m. a 38 w me... $05 z c. I. $8 w. cl. $8 $09 253:. 050mm mam... . mommo uoEu— wEOm baEm 11 . iliiL 104 1 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing ln 3 % of the 36 59 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier Tier 4 Tier 1 1 3% 33% \ / I Tier Number 1 figgégégiggggggg5;... I Tier Number 2 .:.:Z:I:2:2:::::1::::':-:.:. - T. 2 B Tier Number 3 1/ . ler . * 2 x Tler Number 4 ”Her 34/ 56% 2 -- ___... 8% 1 1 Figure 127: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads per Tier 1 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing In 1 % of the 36 lg Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Row Middle Row 0M3?” 2 25% \ f, I Outside Row 1 I Middle Row NE Outside Row 1 I Outside Row 2 1 75% __ _ _________ -_ r _m 1 Figure 128: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads per Row - Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing In % of the 36 _NQ Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column Column 4 8% Column 3- lI Column 1 14% ........ IColumn 2 E'lColumn 3 C°'""‘" 24/ IColumn 4 23% 1 Figure 129: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads per Column 105 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing empty bottle filled cases with the tags on those cases facing forward. 1 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward 1 Percentage of 25 Trials with at Least 1 No-Read 1 Figure 130: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Trial Reads vs. No Reads T" , -m 1 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward 1 Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags No Read Figure 131: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 106 - assay. a ewm: «38m 028! gouxeflm amaze—8.8m wavy. - .538... memos“. awe... .880 3...”. 0.33. .995. ”mm. 05%.”. .3532 an... ”aw”nunwmmxmmmnmnwmauamaflaaww Balggrczlr $0 $9 $o~ $0M $o¢ $om $00 $9. $8 $8 $09 252:0... mEomn. mam... . 330 3...". 230m baEm slay; sz .10; specs 691 go ebuueoaed 107 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward % of 119 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier There were zero No-reads for this scenario i i I fiTie—r Number 1 '8 Tier Number 2 1GTier Number 3 1 1I Ti_e_r Number 4 1 Figure 133: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Percentage of No Reads per Tier Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward 1 % of lag Reads for the Whole Pallet Broken down by Row 1 There were zero No-reads for this scenario 1 Outside Row 1'1 1 I Middle Row I Outside Row 2 L ___ Figure 134: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Percentage ofNo Reads per Row Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward % of fig Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column There were zero No-reads for this scenario 1IColumn 1” 1IColumn 2 [3 Column 3 IColumn 41 1 1 L__.. Figure 135: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Percentage of No Reads per Column 108 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing empty bottle filled cases with the tags on those cases facing up. ‘ Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up 1 Percentage of 25 Trials with at Least 1 No-Read 1 No Read 0% 100% Figure 136: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Trial Reads vs. No Reads . Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up 1 Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags No Read 0% Figure 137: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 109 8503.85 owficoeom .33. - BEES mafia... mweh .830 3...... 090m bafim ”mm. 059”. aeeeemaxus 88m 02 a! .3832 an... WUm9WW.awmmmmxmnmmwmauamflfluawwmmummumuumeetssveal $0 $0.. $8 $8 $ov 110 $8 $ow $2 $8 emu 9: .lo; speea Be; 1° efiaueared $8 $8? _ Enid: 8.0m". mum... . $30 3...". 230m baEm i 1 l l t— ._..._— #—--.._ ___—___._ _.._.....—___. fi._.. “. ___. ._._._ -. __ __ _ ___. __ _ — — _. ——. — — .~ _ _ 1 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up 1 % of & Reads for the Whole Pallet 1 broken down by Tier 1 There were zero No-reads for this scenario 1 @716 Number 1 1 1 a Tier Number 2 1 113Tier Number 3 1 1IIisrflyln36L§1 1 Figure 139: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Tier Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up % of 59 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Row There were zero No-reads for this scenario 1 rI Outside RoiuT .I Middle Row 1I Outside Row 2 Figure 140: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Row Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up % ofgg Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column There were zero No-reads for this scenario I Column 1 1 I! Column 2 El Column 3 19 Column 4 1 Figure 141: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Percentage of No Reads per Column 111 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing empty bottle filled cases with the tags on those cases facing down. Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down 1 Percentage of 25 Trials with at Least 1 No-Read No Read 1 32% 1 Figure 142: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down 1 Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags 1 No Read 1 1% Figure 143: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 1‘12 88588 850335 33. - nSBESOQ memos... awe... .momeu 32E Exam mem ”3: 0.83... ; anaemawni _Mememezmm .onEaz an... mnwwwWevwmmmmxmnmmwmuuuuwnuawmmmummumnumaetesvezi. $o $2 d $8 m 0 U $8 a, 5 9 $8 mv.. m. e8 N. o m $8 3 I, m o\oOh a I. “- $8 W 8 $8 $02 9.95553. 8.3". mum... - «.360 3...“. 230m baEmm 113 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down 5 96 of the 8 & Reads for the Whole Pallet i broken down by Tier I Tier 3_ leel' 4 ITier Number 1 I Tier Number 2 EITier Number 3 Tier Numberfi . 0% 1 _nm A/ 50% l ,_ Figure 145: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads per Tier Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down % of the 8 N9 Reads for the Whole Pallet i ‘ i broken down by Row ; Outside ROW 2 .. | 25% \ OUtSlde ROW 1 (sum 1 50% g I Middle Row Middle Row/ IOutside Row 2 25% _l Figure 146: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads per Row 5 Empty Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down ’~ % of the 8 59 Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column Column 4 Column 3_ 13% 25% \ icaam‘ I Column 2 [3 Column 3 Figure 147: Empty Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads per Column 114 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing water bottle filled cases with the tags on those cases facing out. Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out 1 i Percentage of 25 Trials with at Least 1 No-Read \ Read 0% No Read ‘ 100% l Figure 148: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Trial Reads vs. No Reads . Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out 1 Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags Figure 149: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 115 gouxdam 0935805 Bum - 29590 9:03 mwflt .330 3:5 233— 53.3 52 83E _Iaeaomseofl «Bomezeolr Ti con—=32 an... may lrlrlvlvliullvlvlrlr m m m m any”wuawmmxnmmnmawmuuawuna wusatsstZLOSSLQSVSZL we, l$o , $2 ‘ $o~ , $8 , $ov $8 $00 I $2 , $ow , $8 , $09 223:0 mEomm mum... - mommo pea". Stem .225 slay; sz :0; speeu Bu go eBeiueoled 116 Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out % of the 396 fig Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier I Tier 4 Tier 1 24% 26% ; ilTierTumber 1 i BTier Number 2 l UTier Number 3 l [ITiefNumM } Tier 3 Tier 2 l 25% 25% ! Figure 151: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out- Percentage of No Reads per Tier Water Bottle Filled Cases- -Tags Facing Out } % of the 396 & Reads for the Whole Pallet ) broken down by Row 1 fl *1 Outside Row 1 Outside Row 2 0% 0% Otfisidefiw 1* I Middle Row 1 Ffltsidsfiw ; Middle Row ‘ 100% Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Out % of the 396 & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Column Column 4 25% 1 Column1 77 *7 7 W i ‘ 26 A EIColumn 1 .\\\\\\\\V 1IColumn 2 W ‘lflColumn 3 , CIolumn 4 } Column 3_/ \7 Column 2 T i i T’ i ‘ 24% 25% Figure 153: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Out- Percentage of No Reads per Column 117 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing water bottle filled cases with the tags on those cases facing in. Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing In Percentage of 25 Trials with at Least 1 No—Read Read 0% I No Read ' 100% Figure 154: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Trial Reads vs. No Reads i 7*. a 1 Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing In Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags Read Figure 155: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 118 gave—«Em 0388qu 08M - 0833 0580 mach .830 02:"— oEom $33 62 2:30 uuoomS$D 2801020»- 39.520: fummwuawmxmaxmnmammauuuwauunwmmummnmuumsatsstcz; $0 $0 r $0N $00 $0¢ $00 $00 $05 $00 $00 $00 r 295:. 053... mum... . mommo uo=_n_ eEom .325 spy; 9; .lo; speeu 531 to eBauealed 119 Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing In ‘ % of the 1 190 59 Reads for the Whole Pallet I 1 broken down by Tier \ Tier 4 Tier 1 3 24% \ _ ' 26% — I Tier Number 1 l ‘ ITier Number 2 ‘ DTier Number 3 | Tier Number 4 1 Tier 3 ,, - Tier 2 j 25% 25% L‘ Figure 157: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads per Tier Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing In ; % of the 1190 & Reads for the Whole Pallet 1 broken down by Row i Outside Row 2 Outside Row 1 . 34% 32% l IIOutEiat'tow 1 i {I Middle Row Iguisidefiu 2 l l Middle Row 7 34% I Figure 158: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads per Row Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing In 1 % of the 1 190 N9 Reads for the Whole Pallet ‘ broken down by Column . Column 4 Column 1 l 25% i 250/ ,7 ,7 a l o IColumn 1 ' ~\\\\\\\\\\ IColumn 2 W ElColumn 3 / \ LI Column 4 ‘ Column 3 / \1 Column 2 ’ W T i / 25% 25% f / Figure 159: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing In - Percentage of No Reads per Column 120 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing water bottle filled cases with the tags on those cases facing forward. Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward 1 Percentage of 25 Trials with at Least 1 No-Read ( I Read I 0% i No Read ‘ l 100% I Figure 160: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags 68% Figure l61: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Forward- Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 121 :30??on 0305800 30M - 03380 058.,— wah .830 02:"— oEom “use? ”N3 250E , e§ms$5 aBemez$lw .5252 03 wumfiwuawwmmmxmnwnwmaua RuuanwmmummnuuumsstserZL $0 $0.. $0N $00 $0v $00 $00 $0» $00 $00 $00v Eminen— 0Eomn. mum... . $30 02:“. oEom .532, slay; 9: .lo; spseu 631 go eBetueoJed 122 , Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward % of the 813 & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier \ 3 Tier 4 *Tier 1 22% 28% i ' inflamed ‘ in Tier Number 2 ' ‘ CI Tier Number 3 i- Tis: Number 4 1 } Tier 3 Tier 2 i E 27% i , 7 , J 23% Figure 163: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tag Facing Forward - Percentage of No Reads per Tier Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward 1 % of the 813 & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Row , Outsiggo/Row 2 Outside Row 1 1 , ° 37% i , ' I [IOutside Row 1 1 W ’I Middle Row I a e a 2.9% ‘1 Middle Row 1 34% 7 7 , ,, 7 , 7, ,7 7 7, 7 7 777 Figure 164: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tag Facing Forward - Percentage of No Reads per Row \ Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Forward ; % of the 813 & Reads for the Whole Pallet ‘ broken down by Column \ Column 4 0% Column 1 7, Column 3 34% iI Column 1 32% IColumn 2 . ElColumn 3 ‘ [Emmi Column 2 ‘ 34% Figure 165: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tag Facing Forward - Percentage of No Reads per Column 123 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing water bottle filled cases with the tags on those cases facing up. Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up Percentage of 25 Trials with at Least 1 No-Read Read 0% I No Read I 100% I Figure 166: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up I Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags I Figure 167: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 124 $835 38823 use - ease: wage a5 .85 BE deem use? a2 2&3 7 a§m3$n 7300”. oz$l 7 3053203. ”mumywan.wwaumxmnmnwmuuawunuuawmmummuuuumsezestezi $o $09 $0~ $00 $0v $00 $00 $0» $00 $00 $00? 7 .2950: 0E3". mmmh . 380 02:". eEom .335 slay; 9: .lo; speeu 621 ;o efiaueoded 125 I Water Bottle Filled Cases- Tags Facing Up I ' % of the 900 E Reads for the Whole Pallet I broken down by Tier ‘ Tier 4 0% Tier 1 Tier 3 34% I 33% ' ITier Number 1 I Tier Number 2 CI Tier Number 3 I Tier Number 4 Tier 2 33% Figure 169: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up- Percentage of No Reads per Tier i - I I Water Bottle Filled Cases- -Tags Facing Up % of the 900 fig Reads for the Whole Pallet I broken down by Row Outside Row 2 Outside Row 1 33% 34% IOutside new I Middle Row I Outside Row 2 Middle Row 33% Figure 170: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up- Percentage of No Reads per Row I _ Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Up . % of the 900 39 Reads for the Whole Pallet I broken down by Column .____ 7 I Column 4 [F Colztgran 1 I 25% \ #__ ____ 1 I Column 1 I Column 2 El Column 3 I / “Mr: I Column 3 I J W? Figure 171: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Up- Percentage of No Reads per Column 126 The following graphs represent the information obtained when testing water bottle filled cases with the tags on those cases facing down. _7 ‘fi , Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down Percentage of 25 Trials with at Least 1 No-Read Read 0% I No Read I r 100% I Figure 172: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Trial Reads vs. No Reads Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down I Total % of Reads (1200) for all Trials and Tags I Read 0% No Read I 100% I Figure 173: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Total Tag Reads vs. No Reads 127 850385 003:8qu 30M - 033598 0:08..— mmfl. .380 02E 030m H8“? ”w: 030E e§m8$u7 oncomoz$l LBS—.202. anmmwaawwmxnxmwmnwmauawnauuw mmummuuuumeezssvezi $0 $0? $0N $00 $9. $00 $00 $0h $00 $00 $00? Ema—.250 050m... mam... . named “32:". 050m .825 128 sieyl 9z :0; speeu be; lo OBEJUOOJOd Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down % of the 1200 & Reads for the Whole Pallet broken down by Tier Tier 4 Tier 1 I I 25% 25% I I * ‘2 ‘ IITier Number 1 I I \\\\\\\\\\ ITier Number 2 I I “ IDTier Number 3 I I ‘8 Tier Number 4 I Tier 3 Tier 2 ‘ 7 ' 7I I 25% 25% Figure 175: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads per Tier I777, _ 7 777 77,777 7 777 7 77, 777 77 Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down I % of the 1200 & Reads for the Whole Pallet I I broken down by Row I I I Outside Row 2 Outside Row 1 I 33% 34% I OJtEIBefiiv' 1" I I Middle Row I I!9!i§ié€39"!72 Middle Row I I 33% I Figure 176: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads per Row 7 T I Water Bottle Filled Cases - Tags Facing Down I I % of the 1200 N9 Reads for the Whole Pallet ‘ broken down by Column I I I Column 4 Column 1 25% 25% 7 I ‘ IColumn 1 I I .\\\\\\\‘ I Column 2 I “In El Column 3 I ‘ I II Column 4 I I Column 3 I \ Column 2 7 7&7 I 25% 25% 77 7 7 77777 7 7 7 777 77I Figure 177: Water Bottle Filled Cases, Tags Facing Down - Percentage of No Reads per Column 129 CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSION The results of the experiments herein show that tag orientation and package content have a considerable effect on the readability of RF ID transponders when viewed as a pallet load of product. The physical characteristics of the product in the package coupled with the orientation of the tag lead to a significant amount of no-reads in certain instances. On the other hand, 100% of the tags were read in the nine experiments having empty cases, foam-in-place filled cases and empty bottle filled cases coupled with outward, forward and upward tag orientations. The hypotheses of this research (Hl, H2, H2, and H4), which were established at the beginning of testing, were evaluated and determined to have the following resolutions: H1) The orientation of the RFID tag on the package will have no effect on the readability of the transponders. This hypothesis was determined to be false. In certain orientations, specifically tags facing inward and downward, experiments show, a larger number of no-reads across all product types. H2) The product contained in the package will not have an effect on the readability of the RFID transponders. This hypothesis was determined to be false. Certain products, specifically rice and filled water bottle cases had significantly higher numbers of no-reads than the other products tested. 130 H3) Cases containing products made up of water will have lower read rates than those cases containing waterless products. This hypothesis was determined to be true. This was confirmed by comparing the number of no-reads between filled water bottle cases and foam-in—place, empty bottle and rice filled cases. The filled water bottle cases have a much larger number of no-reads than all other waterless products tested. H4) All waterless products will have the same rate of readability. This hypothesis was determined to be false. In comparing the read rates of rice filled cases with foam-in-place and rice filled cases, a large discrepancy in the read ranges was present. Rice filled cases had a much larger number of no-reads than all other waterless products tested. Statistical Analysis The question of stability of counts across trials was explored in two ways. Firstly, control charts were created for counts of no reads versus trial number. Based on Shewhart chart control limits, only the sequences for counts of empty cases, tags facing inward and rice filled cases, tags facing inward showed instability. For a second test of stability, product and orientation scenarios with 40 or less total no-reads were examined with regard to the number of trials having zero no-reads. Using the model for random distribution of total no-reads over the 25 trials, only empty cases with tags facing inward was unusual. See Appendix 2 - Control Charts for the control charts used in this 131 research. With empty cases, tags facing inward, there were 11 trials with O no-reads which is highly unlikely under random distribution of the 35 no-reads over the 25 trials (p-value = 0.002). In summary, the statistical evidence supports the conclusion that experimental conditions were stable across trials in all but one of the twenty-five experiments. A standard error was calculated for the read rate of each experiment. In view of the stability across trials and for the sake of simplicity, standard errors for read rates were determined by standard deviations across trials divided by the square root of number of trials (11 = 25), that is 3/5 . Table 4 gives the results for all experiments. Another way to evaluate an experiment is the rate of trials where all forty-eight (100%) of the tags comprising the pallet load were read successfully. For example, with cases of rice having tags facing outward, 4 of the 25 trials (16%) read all tags. Standard errors for this response variable were calculated by the formula p(l — p) / n . For the cases of rice having tags facing outward experiment, this equates to J(.16)(.84)/25 = .073 = 7.3% . Table 5 gives the results for all experiments. These tables mirror the information in the results section, but are compiled here for easy reference. Interval plots were also created using several of the product and orientation scenarios for ease in comparing the different variables. See Appendix 3 - Interval Plots for the plots used in this research. For interval plots of read rates, the 95% confidence level t-intervals are plotted based on sample size n = 25. The intervals are essentially mean plus and minus two standard errors. Products and orientations compared include: 132 rice filled cases versus water filled cases and several orientations of empty bottle filled cases versus empty cases versus foam-in-place filled cases. 133 8:0 “seesaw 5% was 32 Ba :2: Bop .8 $583 a as; Ase so 309 so 3.8 go 3.9 so Ase so mmntom E22. T 3.8 so 309 so 399 so Ase so 3&5 so? moi m 3009 $0.8 Ase so? $09 $09 Ages .38 $09 $08 mmntom Edam w Esme soar. Ass $02 3.9 see 3&9 $0.8 $99 s8? :28 m @008 scam 3.9 $02 $09 $08 33.9 so: §9 see Edam oiszzoo oisa: 335.9. 3352. 255:0 aamflmmw gamma 3 s 20.2525 0. 5 8.5 wavesm 53> most 32 93 38 mo bagm ”w 033. $03 so 3.9 :63 3998 s08 $.09 s3 3&8 $0.5 mustom «wees T 3%.. 5 .303 Ages sag sage $on 338 $08 ease s58 moi m same s08 Ase so? 309 :62 3.08 $0.5 $08 $02 mmntom Edam w $04.9 $98 3.9 $8? $08 $09 304.9 $0.8 $09 so? 52m". m $04.9 $93 309 «as $09 so? 239 as Em $09 $09 >.Es.m 355238 ESE: 9.35.0". 9.552. 33550 a. 55 2359 s cam a3 .98 Izozfizmio o<|h Package Content The effect of package content on the RFID tags ability to read was not evident for certain products. Empty cases, cases filled with foam-in-place and cases filled with empty polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles showed no major statistical difference between total read rates for any orientation. However, rice and filled water bottle cases show major statistical differences between each other and the three products discussed above when evaluated based on total reads. Filled water bottle cases and rice filled cases have the greatest effect on the readability of RF ID tags. Tag Orientation When evaluating the data from rice and water bottle filled cases, tag orientation on readability became evident. Rice and water were the only products tested that showed significant statistical differences between total tag reads for the designated tag orientations. A major difference due to tag orientation was noticed in the number of trials having 100% reads, although orientation did not have an effect on the overall number of reads for empty cases, foam-in-place filled cases or empty bottle filled cases. Because tag orientation had no effect on the overall number of reads for these three products, they will not be used in evaluating the effect tag orientation has on the readability of RFID transponders. Water plays a significant role in the readability of RFID tags; therefore, the orientation of the tag on a case of liquid product also has consequences in the readability of the tags. Water absorbs Ultra High Frequency (UHF) radio frequency waves and, 135 therefore, any cases with tags not in the direct line-of-sight for the RFID system antennae have extreme difficulty in reading, causing the system to be ineffective. When looking at the total number of reads, tags facing inward and downward have the greatest effect on the readability of RFID tags. Tags facing outward were impacted the least by products. Tags facing forward, upward and outward read 100% of the time for empty, foam and empty bottle filled cases. Orientation played a large role in the readability of tags when evaluating the number of trials with 100% case reads. This is not evident for water bottle filled and rice filled cases, in that they had no 100% reads in any single trial except the rice filled cases with tags facing outward, which had 4. For empty, foam-in-place and empty bottle filled cases, tags facing inward and tags facing downward had the greatest effect on the readability of RFID tags; tags facing forward, upward and outward read 100% of the time. 136 CHAPTER 6 - OBSERVATIONS Case Location The location of the case on the pallet played a role in the ability of the RF ID tag to read consistently. Cases were grouped based on the tier where they were located, the row where they were located and in what column they were located. See Figure 7 page 35. No statistical analysis was done on the data obtained from the evaluation of this information. However, it should be noted that case location appears to play a role in the readability of RFID transponders. The following analyses and breakdown are general observations and should be viewed accordingly. With this antennae set-up (portal arrangement) the tier, or layer, of the cases on the pallet plays a role in the readability of the tags. The lower the layer, the less likely the RFII) tags are to read. The row in which a case was located also played a significant role in the readability of the tags, with certain product types. The middle rows had a greater number of no-reads than the outer rows. Because the middle row tags were not in the direct line- of-sight of the system antennae, the radio waves had to penetrate more material to reach the transponder and thus, a likely reason for this phenomenon is that more interference due to the materials was experienced. This occurrence was not consistent across all product types and was generally observed when the product being tested was not radiolucent. The effect of orientation on the readability of RFID tags is closely associated with the product being tagged. When the product being tagged is radiolucent (RF signals can 137 easily penetrate their materials) orientation plays a smaller role than when RF signals can not pass through the product. The ability to read tags on non-radiolucent products is due to tags being in the direct line-of-sight of the system antennae and not having to penetrate the product, making those orientations with a greater number of tags in the direct line-of- sight of the system antennae more effective. The column in which the cases were located also had an effect on the readability of the transponders. The closer the RFID tags are to the pallet jack, the less likely they are to be read. This may be due to the close proximity of these cases to the pallet jack and the possible interferences fi'om the metal or the power source of this machine. In other instances, the readability of the tags could be increased based on the column position. For instance, when reading cases filled with water bottles having the tag orientation facing forward, column 4, the front most column, experienced 100% reads. All other columns had 0% reads. From the information and evaluation of the case location data, a general conclusion can be made. For certain pallet patterns, strategic tag orientation and/or locations can overcome or minimize limitation problems based on physics. Keep in mind that the conclusions outlined in this section are preliminary observations and are not statistically analyzed. This section was included because the data obtained is important when designing the pallet pattern and considering the tag and case location that are most effective for the application desired. They should be examined in greater detail by other researchers. 138 CHAPTER 7 — LIMITING FACTORS FOR THIS REASEARCH As outlined, the product being tagged and the orientation of the tag on the case have vast consequences on the effectiveness of the RFID system. With certain products the orientation/placement of the tag can greatly improve the efficiency of the overall system. When tagging some products, the effect of orientation has little or no consequences on the readability of the RFID tags. However, all products have different properties and each situation needs to be evaluated individually. In conducting this research, several areas that could alter the readability of RFID tags and the effectiveness of the overall system were observed. The RFID tags used throughout this research did not exhibit the same performance throughout the whole batch of 48 tags. This can be considered true for any RFID tag; they are not all equal in performance based on factors affecting their readability such as orientation, product and the reads systems. Some tags have larger read ranges and an enhanced ability to read through non-radiolucent materials. All tags used in this research were checked and rechecked for readability by placing the tag in front of the system antennae and validating the tag read successfully. However performance differences between tags can not be detected using this procedure. This is the same technique employed by industry leaders in tagging products with RFID transponders and should be reevaluated. A concern due to tag interference with other tags was also an issue that was observed after the testing was completed. This phenomenon is called tag detuning and can be observed when evaluating the read rates of the different rows when the tags were situated in the facing-in orientation. The majority of the no reads took place in the 139 middle row and the outside row that was in direct contact with the middle row. Because of the proximal contact of these tags, even though they are slightly offset, this may have led to a higher than average number of misreads. The issue of tag detuning could not be avoided in this research but it needs to be noted that it did have an effect on the readability of the RFID tags used. This scenario will not be able to be avoided in industry without careful planning and consideration before the cases are tagged and the pallet pattern is designated. Even if these steps are taken, this issue may still not be entirely avoided, just minimized, especially in building mixed pallet loads. The testing facilities for this research may have created outside interference that could have affected the readability of the RFID tags. Because this testing was set-up to simulate real industry situations, any interference brought on by the surrounding equipment was largely accepted as the norm. However, this testing was conducted with the surrounding equipment off; regardless interference could have generated fi'om nearby power sources and metal surfaces. Currently, RFID is in the “hype stage” of the technology cycle, with perceived benefits that may far exceed the technological capabilities. The interference and orientation issues are just some of the areas for concern with this technology. Global data synchronization, database capabilities and software/middleware issues are other areas that need to further be developed before this technology is used successfully on a large scale. It is also important to remember that all of the variables discussed above have different affects on the RF ID system depending on operating frequency, system manufacturer, antenna size and geographical location. These are just some of the known variables in operating an RFID system; there are many more unknown reasons as to why these 140 systems behave the way they do. Radio frequency identification may be the answer to supply chain inefficiencies but before it becomes as common as the barcode, several technological obstacles need to be overcome. In addition, this knowledge needs to be shared among companies and be made publicly available to help the wide spread adoption and thus, drive down system costs. 141 CHAPTER 8 - FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS With the initiation of major retailers, consumer packaged goods companies and government agencies implementing radio frequency identification (RF ID) into their supply chains; the research opportunities surrounding the technology are many. Research will need to be done regarding RFID systems and their interaction with packaging materials, production environments and processes. Since the technology is newly developed for supply chain applications, there are many unknown variables affecting the capabilities of RFID systems. The main areas that need to be researched further are: Packaging material effect on tag readability Product effect on tag readability Differentiation between dry products Tag location on the package Optimal antennae configuration The effect of speed through the portal The effect environmental conditions have on the RF ID system The optimum RFID system for given applications Identifying sources of interference and the effect they have on RFID systems In summary, all packaging materials and products have unique characteristics; therefore, they should be evaluated on an individual basis, or alternatively, by product class having similar characteristics. RFID equipment will be exposed to, and have to operate in, extremely different situations and need to perform regardless of that environment. How RFID systems will perform in these environments is unknown. 142 The information obtained from the proposed research will significantly benefit companies implementing RFID in their supply chain. Future testing will aid companies in implementing these systems without the time-consuming research to identify unknown variables. These areas need to be addressed in order to overcome the current limitations of the RFID system used for this testing. 143 APPENDIX 1 - PROCEDURE FOR MAPPING THE READ RANGE Mapping the read range of the Matrics RFID system was the initial testing done in this research. The discrepancies in read range between the designated orientations led to further testing. This testing was done to identify if the orientation would have an effect on the readability of RFID tags mounted on cases and driven through the portal set-up. The opening for the portal arrangement was set to 75” from the front of one antenna to the front of the antenna on the opposite side for the mapping of the read range. This testing was done by mounting a transponder (tag) onto a wooden beam, with dimensions of approximately 2” X 2”. The tag was mounted on the beam using standard 2” masking tape. The same tag was utilized throughout the mapping of the read range to ensure tag quality was not a factor. The tag was either facing the center of the portal (parallel) or perpendicular to the center of the portal, to observe the effect of orientation on read range. See Figure 178 for these positions. U III/Am:\ Parallel Tag _, ""— Perpendicular Tag —-> Figure 178: Top View of Read Range Mapping Tag Orientation 144 Readings were taken every five degrees by starting the tag outside of the read field and slowly moving the tag towards the center of the portal, until the tag was read. This was done to ensure no residual power was trapped in the tag, potentially giving an enhanced read range. At the initial point of reading, there was no contact between the wooden stick and the person moving it, this was to ensure there was no grounding of the tag. The distance fiom the center of the portal to the tag was then recorded in Microsoft Excel. This procedure was followed in testing the tag from ground level (bottom of tag touching ground) to 60” off of the ground (bottom of tag at 60”). This information was then taken and plotted out using a computer aided drawing program. To create a visual representation of the Matrics read field AutoCAD 2000i was utilized. Once the program was started the dimensions were set to feet and inches. Next, the User Coordinate System (UCS) was set to World View. To do this “UCS” was typed in on the command line and then “World” was entered. Next, the layers were set up for the drawing. The number of layers is dependent on how many measurements were taken. For the drawing in this research, there were several layers including: grid, antennae, each level (ground through 60”), a two dimensional layer for each level, and a three dimensional layer for the top, bottom, back and whole. To set up the layers in the drawing, “Layer” was typed in the command line, and then each layer was created by hitting the New button in the window. Keep in mind that the layer being drawn on will always be designated “current”. It is easiest to freeze every layer except the one that is being worked on. Once the layers were created, drawing the RFID setup was next. First the layer was set to the correct level and a single antenna was drawn. The antenna was then copied three times and each was placed according to the portal setup. The 145 commands to perform these tasks were the “Line” command and the “Copy” command. After completing these steps, the drawing of the lines representing the read range at each angle and height were done. To do this, the layer was set to ground level and then lines were drawn from the center point to the distances recorded. If the line was 75” at 90 degrees, “Line” was typed in the command line and the start point was set to “0,0,0” and the end point to “@75<90”. This was done until all measurements at all heights and angles were drawn. When drawing lines on the 12” level, the layer needed to be changed to the 12” layer and also the start point was set to “0,0,12”. This was continued until all lines on all levels were drawn. The transforming of the drawing into two-dimensional (2D) form was the next step. The layer was set to the respective 2D level. On each level a polyline was drawn around the outer edge of the lines on each level and connected to itself. The command used to do this was “polyline”. The next step was to extrude the polyline on each level. This was done by typing in “extrude” in the command line, then selecting the polyline around the outside, the height of the specified extrusion was set to 12” and the angle was set to 0. Once every polyline was extruded, the 2D replica of the read range was complete. The next step was to create a three-dimensional (3D) model of the read range. The first step in this process was freezing the 2D layers and unfreezing all of the lines on each layer. Then the current layer was set to the 3D whole layer. Next, a spline (a curved line) was created by typing “spline” in the command line and selecting the ends of the lines of each angle. For example, every line at 5 degrees was selected from ground level to the 60” level. When creating this line, “3D orbit” was used to position the 146 drawing to see the ends of the lines at each height. Next, a line was created between each angle on the ground level and at the 60” level. The surface was then made solid. Using the “edgesurf” command and selecting the four lines making up the outer panel creates a solid figure. For example, spline lines are drawn at 0 degrees and also at 5 degrees, then draw lines between 0 degrees and 5 degrees at the ground level and also at the 60” level, these are the four lines that would be chosen for the edgesurf command. This was continued completely around the figure until the complete outer edge of the drawing was a solid. The next step was to “extrude” the top, bottom and back layer 1/16” to create a closed 3D object. The commands and procedure to do this are explained above. When this step was completed a three-dimensional model of the read range was available. These procedures were followed in mapping out the parallel and perpendicular tag orientation. 147 APPENDIX 2 - STATISTICAL CONTROL CHARTS a beam é 38m 02 do E6 0 a: 2:5 _mE. ~.~ o.~ mm 3 Na 3 m ends VIM Ha.“ . u 2. 3<< omm.¢u._UD H 5 395 .8 88¢ oz .6 55 u Speaa 0N J0 JaqwnN 148 :38 beam 8.2 38m oz ac ego u 52 same _mt... VN NN ON 3 3 3 NH 3 w p — P - P n n — P ou._U._ mosuu I I me.¢u._UD Eson :95 Lou mucou— oz ho taco u 59938 0N 3° JaqunN 149 5 seem é mesa oz .8 E5 0 ”x: 23E m. mE. m n P ¢N NN ON H OH Va NH OH w and; E j N va.mn._U: ..o.o ..m.o -m.N -o.m um.m 5 Eco". aou monou— oz uo tagu 0 Speed 0N 3° JanJNN 150 :38 need é 38m 02 .8 go u Us: 3&3 _mE. ¢N NN ON 2 0H ¢H NH 3 m n n b p n h b b b ensue omduu | I www.muhua Eson Enou— aou memo: oz no teen 0 59938 0N 4° Jam-INN 151 so 82 5 ass 02 do 36 o ”a: 23; _m_._._. N NN ON 3 0H 3 NH 3 m o e N ensue OZHHU. r <> mmm.mu._un rm ”50 09E as «wood oz “—0 tap—U U speed 0N J0 JaqunN 152 a mega 82 5 3.3 02 do as 62.8 ”a: 23E _mE. VN NN 0N H 3 H NH 3 p n P b n n p - I-(O Iv- b H {.253 7 mm.mHux ’ - < < NH.¢NH._UD .NH .0H :2 ION -NN LVN :H 00.1 no» mummy. 02 no tap—U H 59938 0N J0 JaCI-UHN 153 custom macaw 3E 8m madam oZmo SE 3580 $38sz _m_._._. VN NN 0N mH H I NH 3 w 0 ¢ N b — h p b p b h p b - _ 2} >5 > . “M («x («K 00¢.NHH._UD ULNZLOL OU_¢ 50h m—uflflfl Oz ..—.0 asap—U a 5P93‘d 0N 10 JaqunN 154 a: wfioem comm com mecca e Z .3 SE 3280 63 oSmE _oE. VN NN ON 3 0H VH NH 3 m o e N n p r p b n b n D I" . 0N.Nu._U._ > <> >3 <>x ww.¢Hn._UD .3 ..NH u¢H roH n: 005. com mono: oz do ”:20 H speed 0N J0 JaqumN 155 :38 mass 82 8.7. mesa oz so a: sauce 5: 23E 3t... vN NN 0N mH OH .H NH 3 w o w N we Dads -o > > r. ¢.oHflx D <><§flf “uoH uON m¢.HNu._UD Eson 08¢ Lou memo: oz mo tmsu H speed 0N 4° JaqunN 156 5 £8 beam 5 38m 02% 56 o Us: 235 :H_m_.FH _ D 7.7. C :L ¢O.mu._UD 1m 5 you been .8 33¢ oz he :25 u speaa 0N 4° Jeannn 157 569 2:5 395 8.2 38m oz .8 E6 0 a: 23E _mt... VN NN 0N mH H S NH 3 w o v N ouflfi denw nHo.Nu._UD 1m.o -3 1m.H -oN 5500 Hon 395 do”. mono: oz mo :25 u 59998 0N J0 JaqunN 158 a as? é weave do 56 o 52 2&3 _ ME. ¢N NN 0N wH 0H wH NH 3 w o ou._U._ a 3 a To ll IU nmN.Nu._UD :mH -o.N :mN :H .325 .35 none: no :25 0 speed J0 JaqwnN 159 APPENDIX 3 — STATISTICAL INTERVAL PLOTS momeo e25 233 .0980 93 Each 595 @3028 .3 BE 3285 ”SH BEE inseam s ego“. c260 58“. 5 33m :38 395 s “8 >35 :28 38 anew . mm -H I77I Tom in AV Aw Km me i .8 e I W .mm .8H :82 m5 .8 U cemm 23.285 a, 35:020.. 35. e8: .8 3: 3:35 9623133134 area P93}! 160 momma Haw—E out mama? 83>» .8 SE 3285 ”N3 PSNE u... 0:... as 9%] .0 e. 44 a». .a y 9? V $.{¢\ OI. Asa, Asa. saw”; 46v 00¢ cone done cone 443% Ave 00 ea a e... a» 00 ea 9 s... 0.4 G G u o G u ON O . ow O E r co m o m .8 0 $2 :8: ms 3.. 8 some 22:22.3 m> mama—59.0.. can: one: do no... .3535 afieruao-Iad area pearl 161 meowfieoto 333 98 out 3828 .Ho BE 3283 ”m2 oSwE 9:08:03 50 Sum; a: 88 So moi S 85 Emzcod moi csomz 82 W -8 a” ,2 H m M .8 H Toofi :82 m5 .8 8 came EoEtonxm m> 33:020.. 33. team we go... 3335 afimamad area Pearl 162 REFERENCES AIM. (1994). “RF ID Glossary of Terms”. Automatic Identification Manufacturers, Incorporated [On-line]. http://www.aimglobal.org/technologies/rfid/resources/papers/rfid_glossary_of_terms. htrn (13 May 2004). AIM. (1998). “Radio Frequency Identification RFID: A Basic Primer”. Automatic Identification Manufacturers, Incorporated [On-line]. http://www.aimglobal.org/technologies/rfid/resources/papers/rfid_basics_primer.asp (3 June 2004). AIM (I). (2004). Automatic Identification Manufacturers, Incorporated [On-line]. http://www.aimglobal.org/technologies/olddefault_copy(1).asp (3 June 2004). AIM (II). (2004). “An Introduction to AIDC”. Automatic Identification Manufacturers, Incorporated [On-line]. http://www.aimglobal.org/technologies/intro.asp (3 June 2004). AIM (III). (2004). “Barcode Technologies”. Automatic Identification Manufacturers, Incorporated [On-line]. http://www.aimglobal.org/technologies/barcode/ (3 June 2004). Albright, Brian. (2004). “RFID Tag Placement”. Frontline Solutions [On-line]. http://www.frontlinetoday.com/front]inelcontent/printContentPopup.j sp?id=98552 (5 August 2004). Alien Technology. (2002). “White Paper, RFID Supply Chain Applications: Building Test 1, February 26—28, 2002”. Bacheldor, Beth. (2003). “Defense Department Pushes Ahead with RF ID tests”. Information Week [On-line]. http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=l6700663 (3 June 2004). Barlas, Demir. (2004). “RFID Everywhere for Metro”. Line 56 [On-line]. http://www.line56.com/articles/default.asp?articleid=5290 (3 June 2004). Business Week Online. (2004). “Talking RF ID with Wal-Mart’s CIO”. Business Week [On-line]. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2004/tc2004024_3 168_tc165.h trn (3 June 2004). Buttery, Amy. 2004. Smart Tags: Smart Move? Michigan Retailer, March, 4-5. 163 Clarke, Robb. 2004. Mapping the Read of Your Global RFID System. Smart Labels USA 2004. 16 March. Boston, Massachusetts. Collins (I), Jonathan. (2004). “Alien Cuts Tag Price”. RFID Journal [On-line]. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/857/ 1/1/ (3 June 2004). Collins (H), Jonathan. (2004). “Marks & Spencer Expands RF II) Trial”. RFID Journal [On-line]. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/791/1/1/ (3 June 2004). Cosgrove, Joanna. (2004). “How Real is RF ID?”. Packaging Machinery Technology [On-line]. http://pmtdirect.techriver.net/website/navdispatch.asp?id=40 (6 July 2004). EPCglobalUS. (2004). EPCglobal US Home Page [On-line]. http://www.epcglobalus.org/index.html (3 June 2004). Federal Communication Commission. (2004). FCC Home Page [On-line]. Available: http://fip.fcc.gov/oer/info/rules/part15/part1 5_4_23_04.pdf (4 August 2004). F errante, Maria A. (2004). “Are you Ready?”. Packaging Machinery Technology On- line]. http://pmtdirect.techriver.net/website/navdispatch.asp?id=l97 (3 June 2004). IBM. (2003). “RFID in Business Processes”. IBM Whitepaper [On-line]. http://www- .ibm.com/industries/wireless/doc/content/bin/SmartTagsInformationv.1 .0. pdf (13 May 2004). Intermec. (2003). “Supply Chain RF ID: How it Works and Why it Pays”. Intermec White Paper [On-line]. http://epsfiles.intermec.com/eps_files/eps_wp/SupplyChainRFID_wp_web.pdf (13 May 2004). Kambil, A. & Brooks, J. (2002). “Auto-ID Across the Value Chain: From Dramatic Potential to Greater Efficiency & Profit”. Auto ID Labs White Papers [On-line]. http://www.autoidlabs.org/whitepapers/ACN-AUTOID-BC-OO1.pdf (13 May 2004). LaMoreaux, D. Robert. 1995. Verification. In Barcodes and other Automatic Identification Systems. Leatherhead: Pira International. McCue, Andy. (2004). “Marks & Spencer to extend RFID trials”. Silicon. com [On- line]. http://www.silicon.com/software/security/0,39024655,391 18147,00.htm (13 June 2004). 164 Metro Group. (2004). “RFID - An innovative technology changes the world of retailing”. Press Conference of the ME T R0 Group Future Store Initiative at the NRF 93rd Annual Convention & Expo New York City. Metro Group [On-Line]. http://www.future-store.org/servlet/PB/- s/5mioOn1hegtckobogok6nqb37lfynoq/show/1002039/RFID_engl.pdf (6 July 2004). Miller, D. George. (2004). “BP Castro] Runs a Wll-Oiled RFID Pilot”. Frontline Solutions [On-line]. http://www.frontlinetoday.com/frontline/content/printContentPopup.jsp?id=101986 (5 August 2004). MIT. (2002). “Technology Guide”. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Auto-1D Center [On-Line]. http://archive.epcglobalinc.org/new_media/brochures/'l"echnology_Guide.pdf. (3 June 2004). Murhpy, V. Jean. (2004). Ready or Not, RF ID Mandates are on Schedule for Jan. 1 Launch. Global Logistics and Supply Chain Strategies, July, 40-48 . Onderko, C. John. 2004. Radio Frequency Identification Transponder Performance on Refiigerated and Frozen Beef Loin Muscle Packages. Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University. Paijens, Perter. 2004. Item Level RF ID at Kauflrof Warenhaus AG (Germany) as part of the Metro Group Future Store Initiative. SmartLabels 2004., 17 March. Boston, Massachusetts. RFID Joumal (I). (2003). “U.S. Military to Issue RF ID Mandate”. RFID Journal [On- line]. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/576 (3 June 2004). RF ID Journal (II). (2003). “DOD Seeks RF ID Interoperability”. RFID Journal [On- line]. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/638 (3 June 2004). RFID Journal (111). (2003). “Tesco RF ID Rollout Starts in April”. RFID Journal [0n- Iine]. http://216.121.l3l.129/article/view/658 (3 June 2004). RF ID Journal (IV). (2003). “Drug Tracking to Begin in March”. RFID Journal [On- line]. http://www.rfidjournal.corn/article/view/653/1/1/ (3 June 2004). RF ID Journal (I). (2004). “Target Issues RFID Mandate”. RFID Journal [On-line]. http://www.rfidjoumal.com/article/view/802/l/l/ (3 June 2004). RFID Journal (11). (2004). “FDA Endorses RF ID Technology”. RFID Journal [On- line]. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/SO1/1/1/ (3 June 2004.) 165 RFID Journal (111). (2004). “E-Pedigree Product for Drugrnakers”. RF ID Journal [On- line]. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/817/1/1/ (3 June 2004). Roberti, Mark. (2004). “Wal-Mart Begins RF ID Rollout”. RFID Journal [On-line]. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/926/1/1/ (4 August 2004). Ryan, M. 2002. A Model for the Implementation of A Radio Frequency Identification System Into A Warehouse Environment. Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University. Savi Technology. (2002). “Part 1: Active and Passive RFID: Two Distinct, But Complementary, Technologies for Real Time Supply Chain Visibility”. Savi Technology White Paper [On-Line]. http://www.autoid.org/2002_Documents/sc3 1_wg4/docs_501 -520/ 5 20_1 8000- 7_WhitePaper.pdf (3 June 2004). Sliwa, Carol. (2004). “German Retailer’s RF ID Effort Rivals Wal-Mart’s”. Computerworld [On-Line]. http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2004/0,48l4,89148,00.html (3 June 2004). Thomas, Daniel. (2003). “Tesco moves RF ID into the warehouse”. Computerweekly [On-Line]. http://www.computerweekly.corn/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=124956&1iF lavourI D=1 (3 June 2004). Uniform Code Council. (2003). “The Universal Product Code”. Uniform Code Council, Incorporated [On-Line]. http://www.uc-council.org/upc_background.html (3 June 2004). Wal-Mart. 2004. “Wal-Mart RFID Guidelines and Requirements”. Document version: 1.4.5768327. Wikipedia. (2004). “Definition of Interference”. Wikipedia On-linefi'ee encyclopedia. [On-line]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference (August 5, 2004.) Yahoo News. (2004). “Albertsons Joins RF ID Brigade”. Yahoo News [On-Line]. http ://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/cmp/20040306/tc_cmp/1 830007 5 (10 March 2004). 166 ‘ 'l~ ‘. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LIBRARIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 504 3559