Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RFID Applications for Asphalt Pavements Charles W. Schwartz
University of Maryland
AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials Anchorage, AK August 2009
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Tag ID Power to Transmitter
Antenna
Tag ID from Receiver Antenna
RF Power
Tag ID
Tag Activated by Transmitter
RF
RFID Reader
Passive RFID Tag
Antenna Computer
Application Areas
Inventory Control – Tools/Equipment – Vehicles
Material Tracking – Test Specimens – Stockpiles – In-place
Sensing – Temperature – Strain – Others
Detection – Cracking
Application Areas
Inventory Control – Tools/Equipment – Vehicles
Material Tracking – Test Specimens – Stockpiles – In-place
Sensing – Temperature – Strain – Others
Detection – Cracking
Tracking: The Problem
Lot
AC
Lot
AC
Lot
AC Milepoint
Dis
tres
s
Pavement Construction Pavement Management
Link??
HMA from Plant
Paver Haul Truck
Tags scanned when convenient after construction
Finished Pavement
Encapsulated RFID Tag
Vehicle with RFID Reader and GPS
Compaction
The Solution?
Selected RFID Technology
Passive UHF (~900 MHz) Tags
– 2x2 inch Alien
– 1x1 inch Alien
– 1x2 inch UPM Raflatac
Tag Encapsulation
CPVC pipes (11/16” internal diameter)
Tags placed along inside of pipe wall
Pipe filled with high-temperature epoxy
Cost ~$1 each
Epoxy-filled CPVC pipe
Hollow CPVC pipe
Epoxy Tag along inner
surface of pipe wall
Laboratory Evaluation Gyratory Plug
Containing Encapsulated Tags
Antenna
• 67% survival rate • Some degradation over time • Read range: ~1 meter • Encapsulation process later improved
Pre-Positioned Tags Through-Paver Tags
Field Trials: UMD Lot EE
12.5 mm HMA surface, 50 mm thick 19 mm HMA base, 100 mm thick
1x1 tag (20 total) 2x2 tag (10 total)
2x2 tag (20 total) 1x1 tag (10 total)
UMD Field Trial Results
1x1 Base
1x1 Surface
1x1 All
2x2 Base
2x2 Surface
2x2 All
All
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Detection on basis of Layer/Course
Rea
d Su
cces
s R
ate
Lot EE 10” antenna height
2x2 Tag
2x2 Tag
1x1 Tag
Tag Surfacing
Tag surfacing in Lot EE: • 1x1 tags: 20% • 2x2 tags: 40% (Surface lift tags only)
Hampstead Bypass Field Trial • MD 30 NW of Baltimore • New alignment: 4.4 miles, 2 lanes • 2” surface lift over two 4” base lifts (19 mm) • Staged construction
Hampstead Bypass Field Trial November 2007
• Lower 4” base lift (19 mm) • 40 UPM Raflatac 1x2 tags, 60 Alien 2x2 tags (10/truck) • No MTV
C.J. Miller Paving
• Vehicle speed: < 5 mph • Antenna height: 3” and 12” • Other variables: - Vehicle speed - Antenna height - Antenna configuration
Read Success Rate
3in12in
1x2
2x2
56.7%66.7%
17.5%17.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Perc
enta
ge o
f Tag
s R
ead
Antenna Height
Tag Dimension
Hampstead Bypass
Tag Surfacing Rates:
• 1x2: 0%
• 2x2: 15%
Hampstead Bypass Field Trial April 2008
• Upper 4” base lift (19 mm) • 32 Alien 2x2 tags (8/truck) • MTV
Tag Spatial Sequence
• Variable (unknown) spatial lag • Mixing in MTV surge hopper
Read Success vs. Speed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Vehicle Speed (mph)
Rea
d Su
cces
s (R
elat
ive
to 0
mph
)
Tag Longevity 2x2 Tags - Lower Base Lift (November 2007)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Nov 07 - 3" Nov 07 - 12" Apr 08 - 3"
Read Date and Antenna Height
Rea
d Su
cces
s R
ate
Surfaced Tags
106 density measurements
for 7 tag (July 29, 2009)
(Permeability still TBD)
Technology Advances Small size – 1.5 x 0.44 x 0.11 inches
Durable – FR4 flame retardant PCB
laminate – Up to 200oC, 200+ psi, high
humidity, mechanical shock – No need for encapsulation
Survives paving simulation in lab Read range/performance?
Titan Tag (Summer 2008)
Related Applications
Field trials with NYDOT planned for this fall.
Sensing: Temperature
Intelligent Compaction
Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) RFID
(Animation at http://www.rfsaw.com/animation/index.html)
2”
Tag 0443
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (mins)
Deg
. Cel
cius
Tag
Fluke
Tag 09FE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (mins)
Deg
. Cel
cius
Tag
Fluke
Monopole Patch
Patch Monopole
Laboratory Evaluation
Field Trials
US15 / US340 SW of Frederick MD July 21-22, 2009
Field Trials
Group B - E - G - I Temp. Profile, Bottom of Mat
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance Along Test Alignment (Feet)
Tem
pera
ture
(Deg
. Cel
cius
)
Pass 1Pass 2Pass 3Pass 4
Group B - E - G - I Temp. Profile, Middle of Mat
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance Along Test Alignment (Feet)
Tem
pera
ture
(Deg
. Cel
cius
)
Pass 1Pass 2Pass 3Pass 4
Group B - E - G - I Temp. Profile, Top of Mat
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance Along Test Alignment (Feet)
Tem
pera
ture
(Deg
. Cel
cius
)
Pass 1Pass 2Pass 3Pass 4
(Very) Preliminary
Results
Temperature readings from ~60% of tags
Detection: Reflection Cracking
Frangible Conductive Links
Work is in very preliminary stage
Conclusions HMA production tracked successfully in field using RFID technology – Minimal interference with paving operations – No projection of tags above mat surface – Surfacing of tags being investigated further
Adequate to good read success rate – Range sufficient for bumper-mounted antenna array – 2x2 tags: 60-80% read success rate or higher – Need improvement for smaller tags
Ongoing Work Evaluation of surfaced tags – Local density – Local permeability
Evaluation of smaller format Titan tags Tracking of PCC placement Sensor applications – Temperature – Mechanical strains
Detector applications – Reflection cracking
Guidance on data integration
Benefit:
Added Value
to Data
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
MilepointR
ut D
epth
(in)
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Milepoint
AC
(%)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
MilepointR
ut D
epth
(in)
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Milepoint
AC
(%)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
MilepointR
ut D
epth
(in)
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Milepoint
AC
(%)
Pavement Management
Construction
Contact Info:
Dr. Charles W. Schwartz University of Maryland [email protected] +1.301.405.1962