# Meeting Minutes

# National Intelligent Truck Consortium (NITC)

# 

# 

#  Workshop![](media/image1.wmf){width="4.324305555555555in" height="3.2375in"}

# 

# Garden Plaza Hotel

#### 215 South Illinois Avenue

#### Oak Ridge, Tennessee

# September 16, 1998

**8:30 am -- 4:00 pm**

# 

# 

# Gary Capps welcomed everyone, introduced the speakers, and reviewed the agenda. (See Appendix 1 for agenda) Thirty-nine people attended the workshop. (See Appendix 2 for list of attendees)

**Bill Kneé** presented information regarding the Intelligent Vehicle
Initiative. (See Appendix 3 for viewgraphs)

**Jeff Muhs** presented information on the Intelligent Vehicle
Initiative with an emphasis on commercial vehicle operations. (See
Appendix 4 for viewgraphs)

**Gary Capps** presented information regarding the NITC. (See Appendix 5
for viewgraphs)

He explained the goals of the workshop as follows:

1.  To come together and establish a national intelligent truck
    consortium with a focus on technology integration, development of a
    single user interface and interrupt protocols/standards for the
    system;

2.  To establish a technical and administrative structure to bring about
    item 1;

3.  To understand the needs of our first potential source of funding;
    and

4.  To tailor the structure in item 2 to meet the needs of our potential
    sponsor.

He presented the following view of the NITC:

The NITC is a consortium of industry, academia, and the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory with a primary mission to integrate existing
technology into an open architecture system with a single graphical user
interface suitable for commercial vehicles. Within this direction,
exists the opportunity and need for research and development, future
integration of emerging technology, potential definition of needed
infrastructure and technology and policy/institutional changes.

He stated that in order to begin and to continue in this direction,
funding will need to be established.

He stated that he believed the goals could best be achieved by focusing
on the first session's efforts on the five ITS defined user services and
two emerging potential user services, listed below, as they both relate
to the generational approach presented by Jeff Muhs. In particular what
is achievable for "Generation 0" -- integration of existing technology.

Recommended User Services

-   Driver Condition Warning

-   Forward Collision Warning

-   Roadway Departure Warning

-   Vehicle Diagnostics & Prognostics Monitoring

-   Vehicle Dynamic & Stability Control

Emerging User Services (Industry Driven)

-   Human Interface Standardization

-   Mobile Services Information Systems (MSI)

The focus areas for the first breakout session included:

Session I - User Services Teams

> 1\. Accident Prevention
>
> *a. Driver Condition Monitoring*
>
> *b. Forward Collision & Lane Departure Warning*
>
> *c. Vehicle Stability*
>
> 2\. Vehicle Diagnostics & Prognostics
>
> 3\. Human Interface Standardization
>
> 4\. Mobile Services and Information Systems (MSI)

He proposed the following implementation plan:

***Phase* *[Gen 0]{.underline} [Gen 1]{.underline} [Gen
2]{.underline}***

***Years*** 1999 - 2001 2000 - 2003 2002 - 2006

***Operational*** Warning Assistance Control

## *Focus*

## *Technical* Integration Emerging R&D

***Emphasis*** Technology

Development

Gary asked the workshop members to consider the following vehicle/driver
elements during their working breakout sessions:

-   Driver

-   Tractor/Chassis/Trailer

-   Drivetrain

-   Braking Systems/Tires

-   Communications

-   On-Board Computing, etc.

-   Sensor Instrumentation

-   Others?

Based on the expected NITC phased implementation approach Gary discussed
earlier, he asked the workshop attendees to determine what aspects of
the selected user services that they felt could be realistically
achievable (could be developed, integrated, and implemented) in a
three-year, "Generation 0," field operational test. He asked that they
then outline the steps necessary to achieve this specific portion of the
overall operational test and determine who the likely industry team
leaders should be for the particular User Service. And finally, he asked
the workshop members to generate a short statement that describes the
expected outcome that is envisioned for this particular user service.

The first breakout session detailed objectives and structure were given
by Gary Capps as follows:

####### Team 1 Accident Prevention -- Leader: Kathy Gambrell (ORNL)

Several technologies and systems exist or are being developed to prevent
accidents involving commercial vehicles. Accident prevention
technologies that currently exist will be the focus for "Generation 0".
Additionally, the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative/Commercial Vehicle
Platform has named driver condition monitoring, collision & lane
departure avoidance, and real-time vehicle stability/control as key
pathways to enhancing commercial vehicle safety. Below is a summary of
what IVI-CVO envisions for each of the above:

### Driver Condition Warning/Monitoring

This service would provide a driver monitoring and warning capability to
alert the driver to problems, such as drowsiness or other types of
impairments.

######## 

######## Collision & Lane Departure Avoidance

Longitudinal collision avoidance would sense the presence and speed of
vehicles and objects in front of the equipped vehicle and would provide
warnings and potential limited control of the vehicle speed (coasting,
downshifting, or braking) to minimize risk of collisions with vehicles
and objects in the vehicle\'s lane of travel. Lane departure would also
provide warning and control assistance to the driver through lane or
road edge tracking and by determining the safe speed for road geometry
in front of the vehicle.

*Vehicle Stability/Control*

This service would assist drivers in maintaining safe speeds on curves
by measuring the rollover stability properties of a typical heavy
vehicle as it is operated on the roadway, and by providing the driver
with a graphical depiction of the vehicle\'s loading condition relative
to its rollover propensity. More advanced services could employ an
active brake control system to stabilize the vehicle.

*Specific Goals: Provide and prioritize a list of recommended
technologies. Suggest an importance of each technology for CVO on a
scale of 1 to 5.*

####### Team 2 Vehicle Diagnostics/Prognostics -- Leader: Bob Schilling (ORNL) 

The vehicle diagnostic information service would be an extension of
current vehicle monitoring and self-diagnostic capabilities, such as oil
pressure and coolant temperature gauges. This service would monitor
vehicle safety-related functions. Examples of conditions monitored
include braking system integrity, tire pressure, sensor and actuator
performance, and the communication system. This information is intended
to be useful to the driver, as well as to assist and support fleet
predictive maintenance and management functions. For the "Generation 0"
NITC system, consideration should be given to the inclusion of the
monitoring of the new integrated technology systems.

*Specific Goals: Provide a list of parameters not currently monitored or
reported on the J1939 data bus that should be considered for inclusion
in the NITC bus. Review the ability of the J1939 data bus to be the IDB.
Make a specific recommendation.*

######### Team 3 Human Interface Standardization -- Leader: Bill Kneé (ORNL)

It has been the contention of ORNL and other consortium members that the
management and presentation of information meant for the driver is a key
element in the integration of the intelligent truck. A single graphical
user interface (SGUI) has been suggested as a way to centralize
information, prioritize the information, frame the message into a
presentation based on principles of good human factors, and focus the
driver onto one display rather than one for each intelligent device.
There are industry groups who are dedicated to various aspects of
driver/vehicle interface. These aspects are message standardization,
visual presentation, audible presentation, driving mode software
compliance, and physical interaction. The NITC has the opportunity to
serve in the role of integrator of all of the aspects of driver/vehicle
interface, and hopefully will have the opportunity to deploy and
demonstrate fully integrated systems.

Specific Goals: Review the framework and recommendations to date of the
SAE ITS Driver Interface task force, and make recommendations to modify
(if needed) and support this effort. Consider Human Factors Elements
during this session.

######### Team 4 Mobile Systems and Information Services -- Leader: Lara Baughman (Navigation Technologies)

Mobile Services and Information systems, (MSI) are generally services
provided the driver from the world outside the vehicle. These services
have been developed primarily for the passenger car, but have usefulness
for commercial vehicles as well. These services include Route Guidance,
Travel Information and Assistance, Emergency Assistance, Business
Services, and Real Time Traffic Information. These services are only
recently and sporadically available, and are in the early stages of
rollout. Therefore, there is room to add the specific needs of
commercial vehicles to the list of driver needs being developed by the
providers of these services. The NITC has the opportunity to help
formulate the content of these services if a concerted effort is made to
gain the attention of the service providers. The NITC must also pay
attention to the Human Factor issues that are raised by the availability
of these services. Human Factor issues for commercial vehicles are not
always the same as those for passenger vehicles. Prioritization of
messages and integration with information being presented to the driver
from inside the vehicle, and over the wireless communication channel
must

also be taken into account.

*Specific Goals: Review the MSI technologies from the TRB workshop, and
determine which are interesting to the CVO community, and what new ones
should be added.*

## Information for Team Leaders

-   Remember that the focus for the breakout session team is "Generation
    0" (an emphasis on warning and existing technology).

-   Your team's discussions are not necessarily limited to the areas
    defined by the breakout session information. If discussion on a
    topic (not defined) is needed to complete your goals, please do so.

-   Our workshop is very time limited. Please try to start and end your
    teams on time.

-   Please remember to be ready with your team's report. The note pads
    used during the team session can also be used to brief the
    consortium.

-   Please do not dictate to the team, but rather facilitate.

## Breakout Session I Reports-- User Services as Applied to "Generation 0"

All attendees participated in one of the four groups. The first breakout
session lasted approximately 1.5 hours. Each team leader reported on
their respective group's breakout session. Summaries of these sessions
are listed below.

####### Team 1 Accident Prevention -- Leader: Kathy Gambrell (ORNL)

The specific goals for this team was to provide and prioritize a list of
recommended technologies. Suggest an importance of each technology for
CVO on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being not very important and 5 being very
important)*.* The team developed the following lists of prioritized
recommended technologies in the three major categories

Driver Condition Monitoring

1.  Driver Fatigue/Impairment (5)

2.  Driver Substance Abuse (3)

(Products identified in these categories: 6)

Collision Avoidance and Lane Departure

1.  No Zone/Blind Spots (5)

2.  Forward Warning (4)

3.  Lane Departure (3)

(Products identified in these categories: 13)

Vehicle Stability/Control

1.  Brake Control (5)

2.  Weight/Weight Distribution (4)

3.  Suspension Control (3)

4.  Tire Pressure (2)

(Products identified in these categories: 11)

The team then identified the following manufacturers and products that
would fall into the categories.

Driver Condition Monitoring

1.  Alcohol Sensors International -- Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock

2.  Carnegie-Mellon -- Driver Monitoring System

3.  SCI -- Sleepwatch

4.  Manufacturer Not Known -- Nodding Device

5.  Manufacturer Not Known -- Eye Monitoring

6.  Evaluation Systems -- Driver Evaluation System

Collision Avoidance and Lane Departure

1.  Eaton Corporation -- Eaton Vorad Collision Avoidance

2.  Collision Avoidance Systems Inc. -- Blindsight Collision Avoidance
    System

3.  Armatron International -- Echovision Obstacle Detection System

4.  Ultra-View Technology, Inc. -- Ultrasonic Backup Displaying Distance
    and Object Detection; Tracking Mirror

5.  Delco -- Forewarn

6.  Allied Signal -- Trucklight Mid-Trailer Directional System

7.  Sensor Vision -- Ultrasonic Detection System

8.  3M -- Reflective Tape

9.  Manufacturer Not Known -- Rear-End Collision Avoidance System

10. Siemans -- Infrared Obstacle Detection System

11. KG Rear Vision -- Camera-Mounted Backup System

12. SCI -- Roadwatch Road Temperature Warning System

13. Carnegie-Mellon -- RALPH Lane Departure System

Vehicle Stability/Control

1.  Air-Weigh Scales -- On Board Scales

2.  Meritor Wabco -- Electronic Braking Systems, Electronic Stability
    Control System, Electronic Shock Absorber Control Systems, and
    Electronic Controlled Air Suspension System

3.  Vulcan -- On Board Scales

4.  Weigh-Right, Inc. -- On Board Scales

5.  Emergency Brake Technologies, Inc. -- Emergency Braking System

6.  ORNL/Umtri -- Roll Stability Sensors

7.  PSI -- Tire Pressure Monitoring/Inflation

8.  Cycloid Company -- Self-Contained Air Compressor System for
    Automatic Tire Inflation

9.  Insta-Chain -- Automatic Ice Chains

10. OnSpot -- Automatic Ice Chains

11. SCI -- Roadwatch Road Temperature Warning System

Team Members

Richard Romer -- Meritor WABCO

Bob Ferlis -- FHWA

Tom Plascyk -- Ultra-View Mirror, Inc.

Richard Rost -- Ultra-View Mirror, Inc.

Peter Powell -- Air-Weigh Scales

Jim Reinhardt -- Dana/Moto Mirror

Scott Stevens -- ORNL

Kathy Johnson - ORNL

####### 

####### Team 2 Vehicle Diagnostics/Prognostics -- Leader: Bob Schilling (ORNL) 

Specific goals for this team was to provide a list of parameters not
currently monitored or reported on the J1939 data bus that should be
considered for inclusion in the NITC bus, review the ability of the
J1939 data bus to be the IDB, and make a specific recommendations.

The breakout group included a good cross section of suppliers and
carriers. The initial discussion centered around specific technologies
such as drive train vibration sensors and control, tire pressure, and
driver awareness. The focus changed rapidly to a discussion of the need
for a standard platform that could be used industry wide so that OEM's
and carriers would have more flexibility in their network of customers
and supplier. The discussion seemed to driven by the frustration of the
TMC and SAE being so large and driven by self-interest groups.

The group identified the fleet operators as the champions for making
something happen.

Team Members

Ben Abbott -- Utah State University

Elio DiVito -- U. S. Army National Automotive Center

Terry Fulton -- McKee Foods Corporation

Mark Haslam -- DriverTech

Anup Kejriwal -- American Mobile

Dennis Kramer -- Meritor Automotive, Inc.

Frank Palmeri -- Meritor Automotive, Inc.

David Parrett -- Atkins Technical, Inc.

Bob Schilling - ORNL

######### Team 3 Human Interface Standardization -- Leader: Bill Kneé (ORNL)

[Background:]{.underline} It has been the contention of ORNL and other
consortium members that the management and presentation of information
meant for the driver is a key element in the integration of the
intelligent truck. A single graphical user interface (SGUI) has been
suggested as a way to centralize information, prioritize the
information, frame the message into a presentation based on principles
of good human factors, and focus the driver onto one display rather than
one for each intelligent device. There are industry groups who are
dedicated to various aspects of driver/vehicle interface. These aspects
are message standardization, audible presentation, driving mode software
compliance, and physical interaction. The NITC has the opportunity to
serve in the role of all of the aspects of driver/vehicle interface, and
hopefully will have the opportunity to deploy and demonstrate fully
integrated systems.

*[Specific Goals of the Breakout Team]{.underline}: Review the framework
and recommendations to date of the SAE ITS Driver Interface task force,
and make recommendations to modify (if needed) and support this effort.
Consider human factors elements during this session.*

[Activities and Results:]{.underline} The team met for 1.5 hours and
began with a review by Mark Haslam (DriverTech) of the SAE ITS Driver
Interface framework. This framework is a 3-level framework. A bottom
level (called the "back-end" level), involves a system's architecture,
data buses, message structure, etc. The middle layer (called the
"information manager) supports arbitration of information that can be
displayed to the driver, and the application of human factors rules
related to display volume, etc. The last level (called the "front-end"
level), involves the interface with the driver, operating modes, driver
attention budget, and driver input. After some discussion, the team felt
that each of these levels contributed to a structure for good human
factors standardization. The remaining time was spent in discussing
elements and characteristics of a structure for good human factors
standardization. The following is a discussion of each of these
elements/characteristics.

-   Open Computing Architecture (Operating System)

An open computing architecture was felt to be necessary, because without
such an architecture, the ability to access and integrate various
information sources, would be very difficult if not impossible.
Therefore, an open computing architecture was felt to be a necessity for
achieving an environment that supported good human factors
standardization.

-   Open Standard For Plug-and-Play Capabilities

Having the ability to essentially "plug-and-play" new ITS (Intelligent
Transportation System) or IVI (Intelligent Vehicle Initiative) devices
was supported by the group as a strong necessary condition for eliciting
human factors standardization within the driving environment. It was
felt that without such a capability there would be a greater likelihood
of customized installation that would not be supportive of human factors
standardization within the driving environment.

-   Good Information Partitioning

This issue was felt to be at the center of a good human-centered driving
environment. Considerable discussion focused on the need for filtering,
prioritizing, and if necessary, fusing information from various data and
information sources. It was felt that information partitioning rules
should be sensitive to the driving situation, other message types, and
the device types being employed at a given time. The predominant concern
was to assure that the driver's workload did not exceed the driver's
capacity. It was felt that even if all of the devices to be integrated
in a driving environment were well engineered from an individual device
perspective, that their effectiveness would be minimal without effective
management of the total information coming from all of these devices.

-   Minimization of the Number of Display Devices to the Driver

After some discussion on the meaning of integration (and a number of
integration levels were suggested, for example; co-installation of
devices each with their own display \[non-integrated\]; shared data, but
multiple displays; shared data, but a single display; and logical
integration) it was felt that it was important to minimize the number of
display devices to the driver. The group emphasized that this did not
mean the suppression of information, but rather the avoidance of the
proliferation of multiple displays, each using customized visual
representations. The team felt however, that currently existing
dedicated indicator lights and status gauges probably should be
maintained. Such a strategy would minimize cost, and would elicit
greater driver acceptance in comparison to a driving environment that is
totally different from that which the CVO driver is used to.

-   Minimization of Tactile Input From the Driver

In order to assure that excessive driver workload is avoided, the sheer
number of tactile inputs from the driver should be minimized. Voice
input should be considered along with the design of interface protocols
that do not require excessive driver interaction.

-   Multi-Modal Driver I/O Should Be Supported

Visual, auditory and haptic modes of I/O between the driver and the
information system should be supported because the information
processing capabilities were felt to be enhanced by a diversity of
modes. It was felt that research was still needed on the topic of
suitability of the various modes for various driving situations.
Furthermore, additional emphasis should be placed on the evaluation of
alternative display technologies such as head-up-displays (HUDs).

-   Traditional (Naturalistic) Driving Paradigms Should Be Supported

A human-centered driving environment that involves a number of ITS/IVI
devices should be designed so that there is not a revolutionary change
in the traditional driving paradigm. Drivers may be willing to make
evolutionary changes, but would likely not accept changes that depart
significantly from the way CVO driving is currently done.

-   Baseline Information Presentation Protocols Across Vehicle and
    Device OEMs Should Be Supported

The team felt that while it would be impossible to "specify" a common
information presentation protocol between vehicle and device OEMs, there
should be an effort to identify a minimum set of critical information
that should be consistent. The consistence in the display presentation
protocols for such critical items will enable drivers to maintain a
strong cognizance of driving responses across different devices, and
across different trucks. Such consistency supports skill-based behavior,
which is much less workload intensive that the cognitive-based behavior
that would be necessary if critical information were displayed in a
diversity of ways.

-   The Interface With the Information System(s) Should be Driving-Mode
    Specific

Certain functionalities associated with ITS/IVI devices should not be
engaged in while the vehicle is in motion. In fact, the team identified
a number of modes across which functionalites could be distributed.
These include driving, stopped, diagnostics, sleep, and passenger. Some
functionalities may be allowable if it can be shown that their
engagement can be done without decreasing driving quality. Voice input
was suggested as an example of how this might be done; however, it was
further suggested that talking to complete a task (i.e., to input
information into a system), was different from conversational talking.
It was commented that voice input for task completion might elicit
cognitive capture (a similar effect was noted with regard to cell-phone
conversations that intensely involved the driver; e.g., as in an
argument with a spouse) which could lead to the reduction of effective
perception.

-   Emphasis must be placed on Integration of Information to Support
    Safety

While is was felt to be somewhat redundant with previous points, the
team felt that it was important to stress that the integration of
information, and the effective management of the CVO driver's workload
was one of the most important elements of an effective advanced driving
environment.

-   Implementation of Human Factors Standardization: How Can It Be
    Achieved?

The last topic discussed dealt with what might be done to facilitate
greater implementation of human factors standardization. The following
items were mentioned and are self explanatory. The last bullet below
stimulated some discussion and a brief summary of that bullet is
provided. The items were as follows:

-   NITC should work closely with all standards groups,

-   NITC should work closely with vehicle OEMs and major fleet segments,

-   NITC should work closely with industry associations,

-   NITC should work closely with research organizations that have truck
    simulators (e.g., Carnegie Mellon University),

-   Demonstrations via fleet implementation should be engaged in with
    specific IVI devices, and information management prototypes,

-   Lessons learned, and data and information from CVO testing should be
    collected, archived, and made available to research and other
    organizations (yet to be determined) through an easy dissemination
    method (e.g., via the internet).

With regard to the last bullet, it was felt that getting such
information "out" to researchers and the industry in general would help
to make a stronger case for user acceptance of ITS/IVI technologies.

Team Members

Adam Kahn -- Qualcomm, Corp.

Bill Kneé -- ORNL

Glen Allgaier -- Eaton Corp.

Phil Wolff -- UT/ORNL

Kris Weeks -- Collision Avoidance

Bob Turner -- McFee Foods Corporation

Gary Capps -- ORNL

######### Team 4 Mobile Systems and Information Services -- Leader: Lara Baughman (Navigation Technologies)

Specific Goals for this group included reviewing the MSI technologies
from the TRB workshop and determine which are interesting to the CVO
community, and which new ones should be added.

Generation 0 (Now -- 2001)

1\) Non-dynamic directions w/optimized fuel

2\) Route guidance (Note: dynamic route guidance for CVO has extra
complexities -- weight restrictions, clearances, HAZMAT restrictions,
etc.)

3\) Real-time traffic information

4\) User initiated roadside assistance (panic button, cell phone -- on
star, rescue

5\) Office (voice mail, email, fax, e.g., Clarion, Qualcomm) (Note:
Voice capabilities in cab? Definitional issue.)

6\) Internet

> "In the air" -- out of range
>
> Land-line for long haul

7\) Home

> Entertainment
>
> Concierge
>
> Address/calendar management

8\) Vehicle Diagnostics

> Prognostics (preventative)

9\) Exception Reporting

> Continual monitoring
>
> Report exceptions (Truck out of route, late pick-up/delivery)

10\) Driver Performance Monitoring

> Automate

11\) Monitoring Device

> E.g., Refrigeration -- monitor and parse information
>
> Communicate to other systems

12\) Fuel Tax (GPS)

> Miles driven in each state -- use GPS (want to "know" state boundaries
> download counter at specified intervals)

13\) Driver Log -- Electronic

> Today -- paper records

14\) Electronic Weight Stations

15\) ETA-based on long and lat.

16\) Location -- Accurate

> Standalone issue, but ? in to other to list

17\) Integrated tractor trailer system LMSI?

Steps

1\) Integration -- Comms plug and play bus has to be there -- A basic,
enabling technology. Need to get everyone to play with same one. (Open
architecture)

> First step: into vehicle
>
> Second step: integrate applications into single system

2\) OEM Buy-In

3\) Regulatory bodies/issues there, but less salient than, for instance,
w/DAS

> Workshop participants
>
> OEMs: get them into field
>
> Government support of standards
>
> Current Councils -- maintenance council (TMC, SAE, ATA)
>
> Vendor just supply pieces -- need sounding boards
>
> How does [industry]{.underline} want info?

Vision

-   Productivity

-   Safety

-   Worker Convenience

Team Members

Lara Baughman -- Navigation Technologies, Inc.

Jim Gerdeman -- Atkins Technical, Inc.

Adam Kahn -- Qualcomm, Corp.

Curt McGowen -- American Mobile

Matt Scudiere -- ORNL

Bob Slaughter -- Dick Simon Trucking, Inc.

During a working lunch, technical presentations were given by:

-   Phil Spelt/ORNL (See Appendix 6 for viewgraphs)

-   Mark Haslam/DriverTech (See Appendix 7 for viewgraphs)

-   Bob Schilling/ORNL (See Appendix 8 for viewgraphs)

**Gary Capps** began the second half of the workshop by discussing the
following technical approach for the completion of an integrated system
including the following.

-   Definition of Requirements

-   Technology Assessment

-   Research and Development

-   System Integration

-   Testing and Evaluation

-   Field Operational Test

-   Consortium Funding Strategy, Structure, and Outreach

He explained that the focus areas for the second breakout session
included:

Session II - Technical Approach Teams

> 1\. Definition of Requirements
>
> 2\. System Integration
>
> 3\. Field Operational Tests
>
> 4\. Consortium Funding Strategy, Structure, and Outreach

Looking at the NITC "Generation 0" from a systems perspective, he tasked
the breakout groups to outline the key technical/institutional
challenges that must be overcome prior to completion of the above tasks.
He also asked the groups to outline the technical/administrative
approach that the group believed the Consortium should take to overcome
these challenges. And finally, he asked that each group generate a short
statement that describes the expected outcome that is envisioned for
their particular Technical Approach.

The second breakout session objectives and structure given by Gary are
listed below.

####### Team 1 Definition of Requirements -- Leader: Steve McNeany (ORNL)

In order to assure adoption of the NITC system, definition must be given
to the systems that will allow integration of existing CVO technologies
in an open architecture, plug-and-play environment, while allowing
growth for emerging technologies, and technologies that will be a
product of future R&D. Given the information presented to date, consider
potential requirements related to the total system. Areas to focus on
include: system/sub-system components cost, physical space, weight, and
power needs (voltage and current). Additionally, the potential future
requirements of the systems should be considered (live video, high
resolution printing, real time scanning, etc...).

*Specific Goals: Establish a list of requirements for the system that
will allow for the inclusion of future technologies without system
redesign or replacement.*

####### Team 2 System Integration -- Leader: Mark Haslam (DriverTech) 

Integration is the heart of the "Generation 0" system. This will be the
task that brings together the selected bus architecture and the GUI.
Operating system hardware and software will need to be determined as
well as technology type utilization (surface mount, VLSI chip, etc...),
and the sub-components modularization scheme. Consideration will need to
be given to the type of interface to be used between the technologies
chosen for integration and the system including card cage/back plane
type and communications protocol*.*

*Specific Goals: Discuss the overall system requirements, and what the
issues will be as we integrate a single truck, and then a fleet. Come up
with a list of those issues. Do we need a dedicated vehicle for the
initial integration development?*

######### Team 3 Field Operational Test -- Leader: Gary Capps (ORNL)

Field operation tests will be conducted on actual power units using the
developed NITC System. The test could consist of trucks with no
technology (baseline), trucks with the NITC system and minimal
peripheral equipment, and trucks with all the technology available at
the beginning of the test. Fleet representation could include Full Load,
Less Than Load (LTL), Logistics Contractors, and Private Fleets. The
type of units under test (UUT) could include box trailer, refrigerated
trailer, and flatbed. With these potential parameters, consider
structuring an operational test for "Generation 0".

*Specific Goals: Compare the "ideal" operational test with the
"reasonably achievable" operational test. Explore creative ways to test
on a larger scale.*

######### Team 4 Consortium Funding Strategy, Structure, and Outreach -- Leader: 

######### Jeff Muhs (ORNL)

As with any effort, funding will be required. Additionally, marketing
for the development effort and the final product will be required. For a
broad based consortium such as the NITC, many potential funding
strategies exist such as: internal funding of specific R&D, teaming
between consortium members, and external funding from state and federal
government sources. The structure of a consortium must serve the
interests of the consortium, each individual member, and potential
sponsors.

*Specific Goals: Focusing on "Generation 0", develop one or two possible
strategies to bring external funding into the consortium. Recommend a
potential consortium structure(s) to facilitate these strategies.
Develop a basic outreach concept for the NITC and for the NITC system
once it is developed.*

## Information for Team Leaders

-   Remember that the focus for the breakout session team is "Generation
    0" (an emphasis on warning and existing technology).

-   You team's discussions are not necessarily limited to the areas
    defined by the breakout session information. If discussion on a
    topic (not defined) is needed to complete you goals, please do so.

-   Our workshop is very time limited. Please try to start and end you
    teams on time.

-   Please remember to be ready with your team's report. The note pads
    used during the team session can also be used to brief the
    consortium.

-   Please do not dictate to the team, but rather facilitate.

-   

## Breakout Session II Reports-- Technical Approach as Applied to "Generation 0"

All attendees participated in one of the four groups. The second
breakout session lasted approximately 1 hour. Each team leader reported
on their respective group's breakout session. Summaries of these
sessions are listed below.

####### Team 1 Definition of Requirements -- Leader: Steve McNeany (ORNL)

Specific goal was to establish a list of requirements for the system
that will allow for the inclusion of future technologies without system
redesign or replacement.

-   Must support the user services as discussed in Session I - User
    Services as Applied to "Generation 0"

-   Cost Reduction (i.e., simplify wiring)

-   Needs to be:

-   Expandable to Future Sensors/Communication

-   Segmentable

-   High-Speed Bus for Real-Time Processing

-   Low-Speed Data Bus for Lower Priority Tasks

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Needed to Support Accident Prevention

-   Ultrasonic Sensors (slow speeds)

-   Radar (curves in road)

-   Video Camera (i.e., driver drowsiness, lane departure)

-   Vehicle Weight Sensors (i.e., strain gauges)

-   GPS Receiver

-   Map/Roadway Database

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Needed to Support Communications

-   DSRC -- Dedicated Short Range Communications

-   Cell Phone

-   Means of Updating the Map/Roadway Database

-   Down Load Diagnostic Data

-   Driver Interface (display w/soft keys, speaker, etc.)

-   Inter Vehicle Communication

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Needed to Support Vehicle Diagnostics

-   Accelerometers

-   Thermocouples

-   Strain Gauges

-   Current/Voltage Sensors

-   Pressure Gauges

-   Engine Drivetrain Diagnostics

-   "Black Box" Accident Reconstruction

-   Associated Processors w/Sensors, etc.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Bus Requirements

-   Multiple Buses

-   RF Link (for sensors on rotating parts)

-   Future Need -- High Bandwidth

Cost Factors

-   ROT -- Bus Tie-In \<\$1.00 each

-   Cost/Benefit Trade Offs

Components Should be Plug and Play

Technical/Institutional Issues

-   Cost/Benefit

-   Driver Buy-In, Acceptance

-   Manufacturer's Product Liability

-   Privacy

-   Operational Reliability (false alarms)

Perhaps one way to involve stakeholders is by contractual indemnities.

The group envisioned a system that is safe, efficient, and productive at
an affordable cost.

Team Members

Bob Ferlis -- FHWA

Kathy Gambrell - ORNL

Steve McNeany -- ORNL

Richard Rost -- Ultra-View Mirror, Inc.

Matt Scudiere -- ORNL

####### Team 2 System Integration -- Leader: Mark Haslam (DriverTech) 

Specific Goals were to discuss the overall system requirements, and
devise a list of the issues relating to integrating a single truck, and
then a fleet. Specifically, do we need a dedicated vehicle for the
initial integration development?

The group came up with the following draft structure.

Ultra-High Speed

IDB

J1939

J1708/J1587 Monitoring, Diagnostics, Broadcast Info

PLC4 Trucks

Integration Issues

1\) Multiple existing networks and protocols

> a\) Backwards compatibility

2\) Should the IDB by J1939 or what

> a\) How to include ultra-high speed (e.g. video)

3\) Prioritize the messages as part of effort (e.g., prioritize across a
gateway and routing)

4\) Filtering the messages (not every message goes everywhere)

> a\) Translation of data between networks.

5\) Driver information integration

> a\) Value/cost benefit, etc.

6\) Progression

> a\) Bench level/simulator
>
> b\) Single truck
>
> c\) Pilot fleet(s)

6.2) Include trailers in process

Approach

Demonstrate on Gen 0 integrated system enables an evaluation of the IVI
for CV operations.

Outcome

By the end of Gen 0, the consortium shall have answered the issues and
will have demonstrated the usefulness of the Intelligent Truck in
regards to safety and productivity.

Team Members

Ben Abbott -- Utah State University

Glen Allgaier -- Eaton Corp.

Elio DiVito -- U.S. Army National Automotive Center

Jim Gerdeman -- Atkins Technical, Inc.

Mark Haslam - DriverTech

Adam Kahn -- Qualcomm, Inc.

Anup Kejriwal - American Mobile

Bill Kneé - ORNL

Dennis Kramer -- Meritor Automotive, Inc.

Frank Palmeri -- Meritor Automotive, Inc.

Rick Romer -- Meritor WABCO

######### Team 3 Field Operational Test -- Leader: Gary Capps (ORNL)

Specific goals were to compare the "ideal" operational test with the
"reasonably achievable" operational test and explore creative ways to
test on a larger scale.

Test Requirements

1\) Implementation teams

2\) Ability to modify operation software

3\) Regional testing

4\) Functionality

5\) Productivity Criteria must be defined

6\) Durability

7\) Capture data methods

> a\) Electronic data
>
> b\) Human factors
>
> c\) Safety
>
> d\) Autonomous data gathering
>
> e\) Y branch of data

8\) Legal Issues

> a\) Privacy
>
> b\) Self policing
>
> c\) Amnesty period

Company Under Test Requirement

1\) Adequate technical staff

2\) Minimal impact on operations

3\) Fully disclose profile of company (operational characteristics)

Number of Units Under Test

1\) Minimum of 5 -- 50 trucks

> Cost? Carrier?

Team Members

Matt Cappelli -- Hendrickson International

Gary Capps - ORNL

Terry Fulton -- McKee Foods Corporation

Kathy Johnson - ORNL

Curt McGowan -- American Mobile

David Parrett - Atkins Technical, Inc.

Bob Slaughter -- Dick Simon Trucking Inc.

Scott Stevens - ORNL

Bob Turner -- McKee Foods Corporation

Kris Weeks -- Collision Avoidance

Phil Wolff -- UT/ORNL

######### Team 4 Consortium Funding Strategy, Structure, and Outreach -- Leader: 

Jeff Muhs (ORNL)

Specific goals were to focus on "Generation 0" and develop one or two
possible strategies to bring external funding into the consortium,
recommend a potential consortium structure(s) to facilitate these
strategies, and develop a basic outreach concept for the NITC and for
the NITC system once it is developed.

Priority National Interest (why we're doing it)

With the continual expansion in commercial vehicle use in the U.S. and
around the word, suppliers of a wide range of innovative yet
nonintegrated safety- and productivity-enhancing products, truck and
engine OEM suppliers, carriers, and other public and private
stakeholders are facing a new dilemma. To maximize the productivity and
safety of trucks on our nations highways, an urgent need exists to
develop an open architecture system capable of providing truck drivers
with real-time information via a single user interface. Until this open
architecture is established and made available, suppliers of system
components will continue to face significant barriers to market
penetration of their products, and the proliferation of
carrier/shipper-endorsed integrated safety/productivity-enhancing
solutions will continue to be stifled by disjointed standards and
differing implementation requirements.

Mission (what we're doing) (as presented by Gary Capps)

Vision (where we want to get) (as presented by Gary Capps)

Strategic Goals & Objectives (how we're going to measure when we get
there)

(need to be discussed soon)

More about NITC

The National Intelligent Truck Consortium is both a vertically- and
horizontally-integrated public/private strategic alliance dedicated to
the development and implementation of an open architecture system for
commercial vehicles and associated end-product research, development and
commercialization. The Consortium performs precompetitive (collective
and selective) R&D and is open to membership from U.S. firms with
technical resources and related competencies relevant to NITC's mission,
vision, and strategic goals. The Consortium leverages industry resources
and experience residing with both OEM suppliers as well as carriers and
combines it with the unbiased technical resources residing at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.

Matrixed Leadership Responsibilities & Organizational Structure

The consortium enjoys the unique situation of having matrixed "triad"
leadership team consisting of carriers (end-users), OEMs (suppliers),
and an independent national laboratory (ORNL) with broad-base technical
and managerial ITS experience. This approach was selected in order to
ensure:

-   an adequate balance between "technology push" via OEM providers and
    "market pull" via end-use carriers was created and,

-   the most appropriate open system architecture is developed and
    implemented in a relatively unbiased, commercially-neutral manner.

> Day-to-day operation of the NITC resides at the Oak Ridge National
> Laboratory while technical priorities, major tasks and decisions
> relative to overall program direction, funding, and schedule reside
> with the triad management team. Similarly, RD&D activities are
> matrixed by user-services (led by carriers) and technical approach
> (led by OEM suppliers). Figure 1 shown in Gary Capps comments below
> illustrates the above organizational structure.
>
> See Appendix 9 for viewgraphs presented by Jeff Muhs.
>
> Team Members
>
> Lara Baughman -- Navigation Technologies
>
> Jeff Muhs - ORNL
>
> Tom Plascyk -- Ultra-View Mirror, Inc.
>
> Peter Powell -- Air-Weigh
>
> Jim Reinhardt -- Dana/Moto Mirror
>
> Bob Schilling - ORNL

**Gary Capps** presented the following vision statement:

The National Intelligent Truck Consortium envisions a time in the next
decade when because of its efforts, a majority of commercial vehicles
and frequently traveled highways are equipped with commercially-viable,
integrated, and standardized productivity-enhancing systems and safety
warning, assistance, and control systems.  Responding to changing
internal and external environments, these \"intelligent\" trucks (along
with accompanying drivers that are better informed and equipped) will
continually adapt to and mitigate potential safety- and
productivity-compromising situations, thereby preventing a significant
number of accidents and greatly improving motor carrier productivity.

He also presented the following mission statement:

Working as a unified team, the NITC's mission is to integrate
off-the-shelf technology along with newly developed technology into
economically-viable commercial vehicle safety and productivity enhancing
systems, and to deploy these systems on our nations highways. Further,
the Consortium\'s mission is to provide a commercially-neutral,
value-added avenue for member companies to team with one another and
cost-share R&D activities in an area of common interest (commercial
vehicle safety systems). Ultimately, the mission is to save our
customers and the motoring public time, money, and most importantly,
lives on our nations highways.

He suggested the following structure for the consortium:

Figure 1

During the wrap-up session several questions were asked from the floor.

When will the next meeting be held?

Probably within the next two months.

Where do we go from here?

Jeff Muhs will take the lead to get documents in place to form the
National Intelligent Truck Consortium (NITC).

Gary Capps adjourned the workshop.