Experimental/Feasibility Study of Radio Frequency Tracers for Monitoring Sediment Transport and Scour around Bridges

Detection ranges and uncertainty of passive Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) transponders for sediment tracking in gravel rivers and coastal environments

“…Though it is not possible to examine all cases due to space considerations, a careful review of the geometry of these clustering tests show that they can generally be explained by the proximity of the tracer to the antenna loop and the variable size of the detection zone around the transponder, and the variable power transmission from the antenna to the transponder at different orientations. These results are in agreement with one previous study about the effect of clustering on transponder detection (Lauth and Papanicolaou, ), but to authors’ knowledge, this is the first published test of signal interference for sediment tracking experiments that gives a physical explanation of the detection process involved in clustering. The density of seeded particles should be carefully considered and alternate antennae should be used to properly locate particles in densely populated areas (Carré et al , ; Bradley and Tucker, ).…”

“…Initial studies in natural environments relied on visual identification or vertical tests and provided single values for detection fields (Table I). Lamarre et al (2005), for instance, tested particles on a vertical axis using a 0.5 m diameter loop antenna and 0.023 m Flume n/a 50 n/a n/a n/a n/a Idem as (Lauth and Papanicolaou, 2008) Liébault et al Recovery rate as a function of the reach and of the event survey.…”

Comparison of ground‐based and UAV a‐UHF artificial tracer mobility monitoring methods on a braided river

“…This has led scientists to analyse longer‐term tracer dispersion using metrics based on tracer clouds (Haschenburger, ; Arnaud et al ., ), as is done for fine sediment tracking (Milan and Large, ) where particles cannot be individually tracked. Studies have examined the role that the technical specifications of PIT tags play on their recovery rates, including detection range as a function of their immersion, burial situation, or position (Benelli and Pozzebo, ; Chapuis et al ., ; Arnaud et al ., ), orientation and clustering in the antenna sensing field (Lauth and Papanicolaou, , ; Tsakiris et al ., ), the resistance of tracers to abrasion (Cassel et al ., ), and design of the setups (Slaven et al ., ; Cassel et al ., ). These studies show that low recovery rates are related to the detection range of in‐field manoeuvrable PIT tag systems (<0.9 m), which may be below that of the active layer or bedform thickness (Ferguson et al ., ; Benelli et al ., ; Chapuis et al ., ), and may also be due to signal collision when tags are too close to each other within the antenna sensing field.…”

Assessment of a new solution for tracking pebbles in rivers based on active RFID

“…Several technical studies have sought to understand the causes of low recovery rates (Cassel et al , ), and therefore improve them. The detection range (typically <1 m) of in‐field maneuverable RFID systems, which depends on the tracer (length ≤ 32 mm) and antenna sizes, as well as on the tracer orientation relative to the antenna plane (Lauth and Papanicolaou, ; Chapuis et al , ; Arnaud et al , ; Tsakiris et al , ), may be shorter than the bedform or active layer thickness (Ferguson et al , ; Benelli et al , ; Chapuis et al , ). Also, the tag signals may be in collision, with the result that not all tags are detected separately when several are close to each other (distance, d < 0.28 m) within the antenna sensing field (Papanicolaou et al , ; Chapuis et al , ).…”