Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

Large Field Test of New Stereo Detection

System for the Pedestrian Signal Phase

for the Visually Impaired

Publication No. FHWA-HRT-12-074 september 2012
FOREWORD

The objective of this report is to validate a new tool to assist the physically and visually 

impaired in safely crossing streets. This was accomplished by conducting a large field test in 

four cities in four States. These study results will help officials determine whether pedestrian 

detection systems can be operated safely without interfering with other traffic control tools.

Proposed configurations may extend the pedestrian signal timing phase or omit a pedestrian 

phase when no pedestrians are present. The final system configuration results indicate that the

stereo pedestrian system works without interfering with other systems. This report provides 

details and raw data for the tests so that decisionmakers may make their own evaluations.

Joseph I. Peters

Director, Office of Operations

Research and Development

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of 

the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, 

specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement.
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

FHWA-HRT-12-074

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Large Field Test of New Stereo Detection System for the 

Pedestrian Signal Phase for the Visually Impaired

5. Report Date

September 2012

6. Performing Organization Code: 

7. Author(s)

Bo Ling, David Gibson, Billie Louise Bentzen, Paul Burton,

Neil Boudreau, Mike Bobinsky, and Jim Hoben

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Migma Systems

1600 Providence Highway

Walpole, MA 02081

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTRT5706C10030

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Research and Special Programs Administration 

Federal Highway Administration

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Field Test Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HRDO-04 and RVA-21

15. Supplementary Notes

The FHWA Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) was David Gibson, P.E, HRDO-10.

16. Abstract

In March 2010, a large field test study was conducted on a stereo pedestrian detection system in four cities in 

four States under the Federal Highway Administration’s Small Business Innovative Research program. The 

objective was to prove that the stereo vision would reliably detect pedestrians in real-world environments under 

all weather conditions (e.g., sunny, cloudy, foggy, rainy, and snowy) and extreme temperatures (e.g., very high 

temperatures in the southern part of the country and very low temperature in the northern part of the country) 

and determine that the system effectively actuates pedestrian calls and locator tones on accessible pedestrian 

signals (APSs).

The study was conducted in Tucson, AZ; Somerville, MA; Portland, ME; and Manchester, NH. The stereo 

pedestrian detection systems were installed to evaluate their performance in complex real-world pedestrian/traffic 

environments under all weather conditions and extreme temperatures. A total of 17 systems, consisting of 

one computer and two cameras per crossing, were installed at 9 geographically disparate test sites. These were 

installed at both midblock crossings and at intersections. When pedestrians were detected at crosswalk ramps, the 

system automatically actuated both regular and APS pushbuttons to make the service request on behalf of the 

pedestrians. System performances were evaluated using images saved in external hard disks. Results from the 

testing showed that the overall positive detection rate for the automated APS actuation zones in all four cities was

close to 98 percent, with the average number of false calls per day less than three. This excellent performance 

was confirmed through the real operations of systems installed at the test sites. Currently, all of the systems are 

operational 24 h a day, 7 days a week. Comments from the general public, including the blind and visually 

impaired community, were all positive. 

This system provides automated actuation of pushbuttons based on the presence of pedestrians. This provides the 

protection of pedestrian phases, thereby reducing the possibility of collisions between vehicles and pedestrians,

preventing unnecessary fatalities, and automatically extending the walk time for seniors and wheelchair 

pedestrians without slowing down the traffic flow. 

17. Key Words

Field test, Pedestrian detection, Pedestrian phase,

Pedestrian actuation, Pedestrian crossing, Snow, 

Rain, Partly sunny, Sunny, Weather

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available through the 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 

22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

151

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 
ii

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius o

C 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit o

F 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003)
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3

BACKGROUND OF SBIR PROGRAM .............................................................................. 3

OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................. 7

BACKGROUND—STEREO DETECTION SYSTEM............................................................. 9

AUTOMATED APS PUSHBUTTON LOCATOR TONE-TRIGGERING ZONE ....... 11

AUTOMATED APS PUSHBUTTON ACTUATION ZONE........................................... 11

PREPARATION FOR LARGE-SCALE FIELD TEST ......................................................... 13

TEST SITE SELECTION.......................................................................................................... 15

STANDARD LAB TESTS FOR HARDWARE COMPONENTS ......................................... 21

PERFORMANCE RESULTS BASED ON FULL-DAY SCAN............................................. 23

PERFORMANCE RESULTS BASED ON STATISTICAL SAMPLING............................ 29

INTEGRATION WITH TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL SYSTEM ................................... 31

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 45

RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 47

APPENDIX—CERTIFIED LABORATORY TEST REPORTS........................................... 49

METHOD 501.4. HIGH-TEMPERATURE TEST............................................................ 49

METHOD 502.4. LOW-TEMPERATURE TEST............................................................. 62

METHOD 507.4. HUMIDITY TEST.................................................................................. 75

METHOD 506.4. RAIN TEST............................................................................................. 88

METHOD 521.2. ICING TEST......................................................................................... 101

METHOD 514.5. VIBRATION TEST.............................................................................. 114

CFR47 FCC PART15, SUBPART B: 2009 EMISSIONS TESTS.................................. 126

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 141

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 143

BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................... 145
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Photo. Commercial stereo camera used for phase I algorithm research.......................... 3

Figure 2. Photo. Stereo camera mounted on a pole above a pedestrian walk signal ...................... 9

Figure 3. Photo. Four SBCs in a traffic control cabinet................................................................ 10

Figure 4. Photo. Two-zone detection architecture for locator triggering and pushbutton 

actuation........................................................................................................................................ 11

Figure 5. Photo. Simulated pedestrian waiting area test site ........................................................ 13

Figure 6. Photo. East Roger Road at North 1st Avenue test site in Tucson, AZ.......................... 15

Figure 7. Photo. North Campbell Avenue at East Blacklidge Drive test site in Tucson, AZ....... 16

Figure 8. Photo. East Grant Road at North Palo Verde Boulevard test site in Tucson, AZ ......... 16

Figure 9. Photo. East Broadway Boulevard at Fellowship Square test site in Tucson, AZ.......... 16

Figure 10. Photo. West Kelso Street/North Oracle Road test site in Tucson, AZ........................ 17

Figure 11. Photo. Intersection at McGrath Highway and Broadway in Somerville, MA............. 17

Figure 12. Photo. Deering Avenue/Park Avenue test site in Portland, ME.................................. 18

Figure 13. Photo. Commercial Street/Franklin Street test site in Portland, ME........................... 19

Figure 14. Photo. Aerial view of Medical Center test site at McGregor Street and 

Foundry Street in Manchester, NH ............................................................................................... 19

Figure 15. Equation. Margin of error............................................................................................ 29

Figure 16. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on East Broadway at 

Fellowship Square in Tucson, AZ ................................................................................................ 31

Figure 17. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on southeast corner of 

North Campbell Avenue and East Blacklidge Drive in Tucson, AZ............................................ 32

Figure 18. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at the intersection of

West Kelso Street and North Oracle Road in Tucson, AZ ........................................................... 33

Figure 19. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on the west side of the 

intersection at East Grant Road and North Palo Verde Boulevard in Tucson, AZ....................... 34

Figure 20. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at the intersection of 

McGrath Highway and Broadway in Somerville, MA................................................................. 35

Figure 21. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at the north crosswalk 

across McGrath Highway parallel to Broadway in Somerville, MA............................................ 36

Figure 22. Photo. Two operational stereo pedestrian detection systems on the east side of 

McGrath Highway parallel to Broadway in Somerville, MA....................................................... 37

Figure 23. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on the south side of 

Broadway and the west side of McGrath Highway in Somerville, MA....................................... 38

Figure 24. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on the northeast corner of 

Deering Avenue and Park Avenue in Portland, ME..................................................................... 39

Figure 25. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at Deering Avenue and 

Park Avenue in Portland, ME....................................................................................................... 40

Figure 26. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at Franklin Street and 

Commercial Street in Portland, ME.............................................................................................. 41
v

Figure 27. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on southeast corner of 

McGregor Street and Foundry Street in Manchester, NH ............................................................ 42

Figure 28. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system along McGregor Street 

at Foundry Street in front of Catholic Medical Center in Manchester, NH.................................. 43

Figure 29. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at the west side of 

McGregor Street at Foundry Street at the Catholic Medical Center in Manchester, NH ............. 44
vi

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Test Site data for Somerville, MA.................................................................................. 24

Table 2. Performance evaluation results for Somerville, MA ...................................................... 24

Table 3. Test data for the two test sites in Portland, ME.............................................................. 25

Table 4. Performance evaluation results for Portland, ME........................................................... 25

Table 5. Test data for the two test sites in Manchester, NH ......................................................... 26

Table 6. Performance evaluation results for Manchester, NH...................................................... 26

Table 7. Test data for two test sites in Tucson, AZ ...................................................................... 27

Table 8. Performance evaluation results for Tucson, AZ............................................................. 27

Table 9. Performance evaluation results based on random sampling........................................... 30
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In March 2010, a large field test was conducted of a stereo pedestrian detection system in 

four cities in four States under the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Small Business 

Innovative Research (SBIR) program. The objective was to prove that the stereo vision would 

reliably detect pedestrians in real-world environments under all weather conditions (e.g., sunny, 

cloudy, foggy, rainy, and snowy) and extreme temperatures (e.g., very high temperatures in the

southern part of the country and very cold temperatures in the northern part of the country) and

to determine whether the system effectively actuates pedestrian calls and the locator tones on 

accessible pedestrian signals (APSs).

The study was conducted in Tucson, AZ (five test sites, one signalized intersection, and 

four signalized midblock crossings, including two walk time extensions); Somerville, MA

(one signalized intersection adjacent to a recreation center); Portland, ME (two signalized 

intersections, with one being near an education and rehabilitation center for people who are blind 

or who have low vision); and Manchester, NH (one signalized intersection adjacent to a medical 

center). The field test equipment was first certified by an independent lab test company to meet 

standards established in the Department of Defense Test Method Standard for Environmental 

Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests.

(1) The lab performed a series of tests that 

included high/low temperature, humidity, rain, icing, vibration, and Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) 15 Subpart B (unintentional radiators) testing for electromagnetic 

interference.

(2) The units passed Class A digital devices for higher, less strict limits and 

Class B digital devices for lower, more strict limits.

The stereo pedestrian detection systems were installed to evaluate their performance in 

complex real-world pedestrian/traffic environments under all weather conditions and extreme 

temperatures. In the four cities, a total of 17 systems, consisting of one computer and 

two cameras per crossing, were installed at 9 geographically disparate test sites. These were 

installed at both midblock crossings and at intersections. When pedestrians were detected at 

crosswalk ramps, the system automatically actuated both regular and APS pushbuttons to make a 

service request on behalf of the pedestrians. System performances were evaluated using images 

saved in external universal serial bus (USB) hard disks. 

Results from the testing showed that the overall positive detection rate for the automated APS 

actuation zone was close to 98 percent, with the average number of false calls less than 

three per day. This excellent performance was confirmed through the real operations of systems 

installed at the test sites. Out of the total count evaluation days, the systems detected 308 of 

310 pedestrians (99 percent) on 6 rainy days and 244 of 248 pedestrians (98 percent) on 4 snowy 

days. Currently, all of the systems are operational 24 h a day, 7 days a week (24/7). Comments 

from the general public, including the blind and visually impaired community, were all positive. 

The automated actuation of pushbuttons based on the stereo detection of the presence of 

pedestrians was demonstrated to reliably and accurately call and/or omit pedestrian phases and 

thus potentially reduce the possibility of collisions between vehicles and pedestrians. The units 

automatically extended the walk time for seniors and wheelchair pedestrians successfully

without slowing down the traffic flow. 

3

INTRODUCTION

While studying pedestrian operations and safety, research and development engineers have 

observed an aging population with many slow-moving elderly, impaired, and visually disabled 

pedestrians. Michael F. Trentacoste, Director of the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center,

stated, “According to the 2000 census, Americans aged 65 and older make up 12.4 percent of the 

U.S. population.” Additionally, “By the year 2030, one in five Americans will be over 65.”(3)

As a result, detecting and tracking systems for these aging pedestrians are necessary to support 

collision warning systems, intersection traffic control operations, and safety for visually impaired

pedestrians. A pedestrian detection system using stereo imaging and artificial intelligence 

algorithms for pulling out and tracking pedestrians from the stream of moving objects at 

intersections was determined to be a potential way to address these issues and show the utility of 

such systems. Since the goal was to put the candidate system into use as an exemplar, the SBIR

program was chosen as the research vehicle.

BACKGROUND OF SBIR PROGRAM

The SBIR program is divided into two major phases. During phase I, researchers developed and 

demonstrated the prototype software and hardware that embodied a simplified version of the 

system. The software was run on top of a real-time operating system to demonstrate the 

capabilities. The algorithms and software were prototyped and validated using the software 

program Mathcad. Several unique features identifiable by stereo imaging were validated and 

utilized to enhance the separate detection of pedestrians from the presence of other moving 

objects such as cars, motorcycles, branches, dogs, birds, and shadows. A commercial stereo 

camera (not environmentally hardened) was utilized to develop the concepts and algorithms 

(see figure 1).

Figure 1. Photo. Commercial stereo camera used for phase I algorithm research.

During phase II of the SBIR program, researchers enhanced the system algorithms and 

performed preliminary interfacing to a real-time traffic signal controller emulating a pedestrian 

pushbutton. Phase II addressed issues related to making the system minimally functional during 

rain and snow. The project required working with experts in traffic engineering, real-time 

control, video sensing, and pedestrian detection to make it work. Phase II demonstrated the basic 

practicality of the concept and its hardware and software at a crosswalk at a midblock crossing at 

Phillips Academy in Andover, MA.
4

Phase II was used to conduct a large-scale field test of the equipment and software to 

demonstrate its safety under real-world traffic operations conditions. This report documents 

those tests. The objective of the large-scale field test was to prove to traffic engineers that it is 

operationally safe to install pedestrian sensors to decrease problems and enhance pedestrian 

crossing safety.

In March 2010, a large-scale field test was conducted of a stereo pedestrian detection system in 

four cities in four States under FHWA’s SBIR program. The objective was to prove that stereo 

vision would reliably detect pedestrians in real-world environments under all weather conditions 

(e.g., sunny, cloudy, foggy, rainy, and snowy) and extreme temperatures (e.g., very high 

temperatures in the southern part of the country and very cold temperatures in the northern part 

of the country). Determining whether the system effectively actuates pedestrian calls and the 

locator tones on APSs is critical to convincing engineers that it is safe to use these systems to 

improve pedestrian crossings.

Test sites were selected on the basis of the number of pedestrian fatalities that occurred in the 

past few years and the number of pedestrians and/or the number of visually impaired pedestrians 

using the sites daily. These criteria address the pedestrian safety concerns at intersections and 

midblock crosswalks. For example, many pedestrians simply walk into an intersection without 

pushing the pushbutton and then rush through the crosswalk when there are oncoming vehicles, 

which could potentially cause fatalities. 

Visually impaired pedestrians can easily recognize that they are at an intersection with an 

actuated pedestrian signal when they hear the locator tone of an APS. The locator tone helps 

them find the pushbutton, and then they must push the button (the same button used by all 

pedestrians) to request a pedestrian phase. The locator tone does not indicate the location of the 

crosswalk at many intersections because pushbuttons have not been required to be in a specific 

location in relation to the crosswalk. In the absence of an APS locator tone, it can be challenging 

for pedestrians who are visually impaired to locate pushbuttons, and most of them will not 

attempt to locate and use pushbuttons unless they know a crossing has a pushbutton and they 

know the location of that pushbutton. 

According to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), APS locator tones are 

required to operate 24/7.

(4) In order to evaluate the effect of stereo pedestrian detection and 

consequent actuation of the locator tone and/or the pedestrian call on street crossings by 

pedestrians with visual impairments, all stereo detection units installed in this field test were 

capable of actuating APS pushbuttons based on detection of pedestrians at curb ramps. The APS 

pushbutton helps visually impaired and blind pedestrians quickly locate the pushbutton through 

the audible locator tone. Since locator tones could be too loud and cause concerns for nearby 

residents, they should only be turned on when pedestrians are within 12 ft (3.66 m) of the 

pushbutton, as defined by the MUTCD.(4)

This large-scale field test was conducted in two stages. In stage I, all system units installed at the 

test sites were standalone and not interfaced with the traffic signal system; they merely detected 

pedestrians. Researchers recorded the results in an offline analysis. Local transportation 

department traffic engineers participated in the test and mailed their results to the researchers. 

The results were manually scanned, and the saved images were sorted into two categories: 
5

regular images saved every second and pedestrian detection images saved whenever pedestrians 

were detected. Both pedestrian detection rate and the number of false calls were subsequently 

estimated for the system performance evaluation.

When performance at all field test sites was consistently satisfactory, the test entered stage II. 

The system units were connected directly to the APS pushbuttons and interacted with the traffic 

signal system to place a service call on behalf of pedestrians detected as they waited to cross the 

intersection. False calls also placed service calls and potentially delayed the traffic flow, which 

was undesirable. APS locator tones performed in typical fashion, sounding once per second 

during the do not walk and flashing do not walk intervals. All systems were in operation 24/7, 

and local transportation department personnel carefully monitored the system performance and 

gathered comments from the general public. 

Local engineers in all four cities were satisfied with the system performance at the test sites, and 

no traffic interruption was reported. In a follow-up stage III in Portland, ME, visually impaired 

pedestrians without the aid of the stereo pedestrian detection system and with and without the 

pedestrian detection system assisting the APS system were tested, and the system was found to 

be effective for them. 

7

OBJECTIVE

The field test measurements were conducted to achieve the following primary objectives:

• Evaluate detection capabilities under key visibility altering weather conditions (e.g.,

sunny, cloudy, foggy, rainy, and snowy weather). Verify that the performance of the unit 

under long-term field conditions is not adversely affected by rain, snow, and road dust.

• Measure detection accuracy under a variety of adverse temperature conditions known to 

impair electronics equipment (e.g., extreme temperatures in different geographical areas).

• Evaluate detection accuracy for activating the APS tones for visually impaired

pedestrians for the number of pedestrians detected and for the number of false calls.

• Evaluate detection accuracy for activating the pedestrian phase for the number of 

pedestrians detected to call the phase correctly and for the number of false calls that delay 

traffic unnecessarily.

• Evaluate the ability of the electronics to function correctly under adverse environmental 

conditions in an environmental testing laboratory according to Department of Defense

(DoD) standards (e.g., high/low temperatures, humidity, rain, icing, and vibration).(1)

(See the appendix for additional details.)

• Evaluate the ability of the electronics to reliably call the pedestrian phase when a 

pedestrian is detected by the sensor.

• Evaluate the ability of the electronics to reliably extend the pedestrian phase when a 

pedestrian remains in the crosswalk. (This testing required the presence of a traffic signal 

controller that has an option for extending the pedestrian phase when requested by a 

pedestrian sensor.)

Data collected at the field test sites in 2011 and 2012 indicated that the units performed well 

under a variety of environmental conditions. Laboratory testing demonstrated that harsh 

environmental conditions, particularly high levels of moisture and rain, did not adversely 

affect the electronics.

9

BACKGROUND—STEREO DETECTION SYSTEM

This section provides a brief description of stereo detection technology and its linkage to visually 

impaired pedestrian assistance (APS pushbuttons) and the traffic control hardware. 

The system used in this large-scale field test consists of a stereo camera, an industrial-graded 

single-board computer (SBC), and video cables. Both camera lenses are equipped with 

24 infrared (IR) light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for low-light operation. With the IR LEDs,

pedestrians are detected up to 80 ft (24.4 m) away from the camera in dark areas 

without streetlights. 

Stereo cameras take two images of the same scene from slightly different viewing angles. 

Algorithms form a disparity map from the images to extract human body three-dimensional 

features. Stereo imaging achieves a higher detection rate (> 98 percent) and a lower number of 

false calls (< five per day). The disparity map filters out problems from changing illumination, 

background, and shading. 

To detect pedestrians waiting at an intersection, the stereo camera must be mounted nearby

(approximately 15 ft (4.58 m) above the ground) with a view of the pedestrian(s) in the middle

of the stereo images. Figure 2 shows a stereo camera, which is circled in red, mounted to a 

signal pole.

Figure 2. Photo. Stereo camera mounted on a pole above a pedestrian walk signal.
10

For the field test, project engineers worked with the local traffic engineers to place the SBC

sensor processors in the traffic controller cabinet. Stereo camera images were transmitted to the 

SBC through video cables and processed for the detection of pedestrians. Each SBC can process 

images from two stereo cameras. The SBC has an Intel® atom processor for lower power 

consumption and uses Microsoft XP Embedded® as the real-time operating system. Separate 

relay cables were wired between the APS pushbuttons and the SBC for visually impaired

pedestrians. All cables were pulled through an underground conduit. Figure 3 shows SBCs, 

marked by a red circle, placed inside a cabinet. For a typical intersection, there are four SBCs 

and eight stereo cameras to cover the eight approaches to the four crosswalks.

Figure 3. Photo. Four SBCs in a traffic control cabinet. 

In this study, there were 17 SBCs and 34 stereo cameras installed at locations in four cities: 

8 systems in Tucson, AZ; 4 systems in Somerville, MA; 5 systems in Portland, ME; and 

2 systems in Manchester, NH. 

The stereo pedestrian detection systems automatically actuated the APS pushbutton and triggered 

its locator tone based on the presence of pedestrians. There are two detection zones, and each of 

them has different functionalities. These two zones are described in the following sections.
11

AUTOMATED APS PUSHBUTTON LOCATOR TONE-TRIGGERING ZONE

The automated APS pushbutton locator tone-triggering zone is outlined in red in figure 4. In this 

zone, pedestrian detection turns on the APS locator tone. Since the detection in this zone is 

almost instantaneous, there could be some false calls. However, it is not critical to have false 

calls in this zone because the locator tone is turned on for only 30 s (configurable), and no 

service call is placed. This zone is larger than the actuation zone because it must alert 

approaching pedestrians about the pedestrian crossing.

AUTOMATED APS PUSHBUTTON ACTUATION ZONE

The automated APS pushbutton actuation zone is outlined in yellow in figure 4. If a pedestrian is 

detected in this zone, a service call is automatically placed. To be detected, the pedestrian must 

wait in this zone for 4 to 5 s (configurable). Since a service call is automatically made by the 

system, the pedestrian does not need to press the pushbutton. However, if desired, the pedestrian

can still press the button and hear the APS information message identifying the intersection and 

the street that is controlled by the pushbutton. False calls in this zone stop and delay traffic. As a 

result, the number of false calls per day must be very low.

Figure 4. Photo. Two-zone detection architecture for locator triggering and pushbutton 

actuation. 

13

PREPARATION FOR LARGE-SCALE FIELD TEST

At the start of this large-scale field test, test units were manufactured and tested for stereo 

alignment. Algorithms were installed in each unit. All stereo cameras and electronics went 

through rigorous tests at the laboratory field test site outside an office entrance before being 

placed in the field. Figure 5 shows this test site, which simulates a typical intersection corner. 

The laboratory site accommodated varying distances between the stereo camera and the ramp. 

Detection results were evaluated to ensure the quality of the systems for the field test.

Figure 5. Photo. Simulated pedestrian waiting area test site.

All systems installed at the test sites recorded detection images (i.e., those with pedestrians 

detected) and regular images (i.e., those recorded every second). These images were saved in the 

external USB hard disks. When pedestrians were detected, 15 consecutive images were recorded 
14

continuously, starting from the moment when the detection was made. Regular images were 

recorded by one of two lenses of the stereo camera every second. 

Since one SBC can process two stereo cameras installed at both sides of the crosswalk, 

“system 1” and “system 2” were created to differentiate between them. The data were saved in 

separate folders each day. The folder structure was identical for both systems. When the system 

was up and running, it initially stored the current date. Then, a check for the time change was 

performed in every loop of execution. In this checking function, the new date was acquired from 

the system and compared with the initially stored date. If there was a change in the year, month, 

or day, a new “year,” “month,” or “day” folder was created.

After the folders were created, the images were saved within the folders. In order to differentiate 

them, images were saved in the format of year_month_day_hour_minute_second.bmp. These 

images were stored in a folder labeled “Monitor.” Whenever there was pedestrian detection, 

15 consecutive images were saved in a folder labeled “Detection.” These detection images were 

saved in the format of year_month_day_hour_minute_second_milliseconds.bmp. The bmp image 

format rather than the jpeg format was chosen because it takes longer to convert an image to the 

jpeg format.
15

TEST SITE SELECTION

The primary criteria for selecting test sites were the number of pedestrian accidents that had 

occurred in the past few years and pedestrian daily volume at the sites. Based on the selection 

criteria, each participating local transportation department initially recommended a number of 

sites for consideration. A site visit was then scheduled, and researchers met local transportation 

department personnel to inspect each test site to ensure the success of installation. Once the test 

sites were selected, subsequent field installations were scheduled. Figure 6 through figure 14

show the layout of each of the test sites.

There were five test sites in Tucson, AZ: one signalized intersection and four signalized 

midblock crossings. Figure 6 through figure 10 show aerial views. Systems for pedestrian walk 

time extension were installed at midblock crossings at East Broadway Boulevard (Fellowship 

Square) and West Kelso Street/North Oracle Road. Both crosswalks are over 160 ft (48.8 m)

long. Instead of extending the pedestrian crossing time permanently, the systems installed at 

these two sites can extend walk time based on the presence of pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Imagery ©2012 Google, Map data ©2012 Google

Figure 6. Photo. East Roger Road at North 1st Avenue test site in Tucson, AZ.(5)
16

Imagery ©2012 Google, Map data ©2012 Google

Figure 7. Photo. North Campbell Avenue at East Blacklidge Drive test site in Tucson, AZ.(6)

Imagery ©2012 Google, Map data ©2012 Google

Figure 8. Photo. East Grant Road at North Palo Verde Boulevard test site in Tucson, AZ.

(7)

©2011 Google Imagery ©2012 Google, Map data ©2012 Google

Figure 9. Photo. East Broadway Boulevard at Fellowship Square test site in Tucson, AZ.

(8)
17

Imagery ©2012 Google, Map data ©2012 Google

Figure 10. Photo. West Kelso Street/North Oracle Road test site in Tucson, AZ.

(9)

Figure 11 shows a signalized intersection that was selected in Somerville, MA. It is one of the 

largest intersections in Massachusetts. This intersection is next to a recreational park and 

residential buildings. Pedestrian volume is high during the daytime and at night. 

Imagery ©2012 Google, Map data ©2012 Google

Figure 11. Photo. Intersection at McGrath Highway and Broadway in Somerville, MA.(10)
18

The Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) in Portland, ME, recommended a number 

of test sites. During the site visit, it was found that some sites were not suitable for the system 

installation due to aged conduits. Two signalized intersections were selected, one at Deering 

Avenue and Park Avenue and the other at Commercial Street and Franklin Street. The 

intersection at Deering Avenue and Park Avenue is within walking distance to an education 

and rehabilitation center for people who are blind or who have low vision. The intersection at 

Commercial Street and Franklin Street is next to a ferry terminal, and pedestrian volume is high. 

Figure 12 and figure 13 show these two test sites.

Imagery ©2012 Maine GeoLibrary, U.S. Geological Survey, Map data ©2012 Google

Figure 12. Photo. Deering Avenue/Park Avenue test site in Portland, ME.(11)
19

Imagery ©2012 Maine GeoLibrary, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Map data ©2012 Google

Figure 13. Photo. Commercial Street/Franklin Street test site in Portland, ME.(12)

The test site in Manchester, NH, is located at the Catholic Medical Center (see figure 14). Since 

this intersection is primarily used by hospital visitors, the pedestrian volume is extremely high. It 

is also used by pedestrians who have vision and mobility impairments.

Imagery ©2012 Google, Map data ©2012 Google

Figure 14. Photo. Aerial view of Medical Center test site at McGregor Street and Foundry 

Street in Manchester, NH.(13)

21

STANDARD LAB TESTS FOR HARDWARE COMPONENTS

For the field installation, both stereo camera and SBC went through the standard tests performed 

by a leading international provider of independent inspection, testing, and certification services 

including product conformity testing and certification, electromagnetic compatibility testing, 

performance testing, and other quality assessment services. The testing standards and procedures 

were based on DoD test standards (see the appendix for details of the test results).

(1) (Note that 

even though all tests in the appendices were performed in metric units only per the DoD test 

standards, the results are shown in this report in English units with the specified metric units in 

parentheses to conform to Government Printing Office publication standards.)

An independent lab test company performed a series of tests that include high/low temperature, 

humidity, rain, icing, vibration, and FCC. These tests were recommended by the Massachusetts

Department of Transportation (MassDOT) as essential for any traffic equipment to be deployed 

in the field. Both stereo camera and SBC were subjected to three cycles of high/low temperature 

(24 h each). The purpose of this test was to obtain data to help evaluate effects of high/low 

temperature conditions on materiel safety, integrity, and performance. This temperature test 

confirms that the hardware for this large-scale field test meets the temperature requirement of

-23.8 to 158 °F (-31 to 70 °C). The humidity test was used to determine the resistance of materiel 

to the effects of a warm, humid atmosphere. The test was performed for 11 days with a total of 

five cycles. Each test cycle lasted 48 h. The temperature varied between 77 °F (25 °C) ±72 °F

(22.2 °C) at 95 percent humidity. The stereo pedestrian sensor hardware passed this test, as well.

The rain test procedure follows Method 506.4 of the DoD standards.

(1) The purpose of this test is 

to help determine the following with respect to rain, water spray, or dripping water: 

• Effectiveness of protective covers, cases, and seals in preventing the penetration of water 

into the materiel.

• Capability of the materiel to satisfy its performance requirements during and after 

exposure to water.

• Any physical deterioration of the materiel caused by the rain. 

• Effectiveness of any water removal system. 

• Effectiveness of protection offered to a packaged materiel. 

The test procedure uses nozzles that produce a square spray pattern or other overlapping pattern 

and with a droplet size predominantly in the 0.019- to 0.176-inch (0.5- to 4.5-mm) range at 

approximately 38.72 psi (267 kPa). The stereo camera passed this test.

The icing or freezing rain procedure follows Method 521.2 of the DoD standards.

(1) The purpose 

of this test is to evaluate the effect of icing on the operational capability of materiel. The testing 

is designed to determine if materiel can operate after ice accumulation from rain, drizzle, fog, 

splash, or other sources. Ice formation can impede materiel operation and survival and affect the 
22

safety of the operating system. This method also provides tests for evaluating the effectiveness of 

de-icing equipment and techniques. The stereo camera passed this test.

Vibration tests are described in Method 514.5 of the DoD standards.

(1) The test verifies that 

materiel will function in and withstand the vibration exposures of a life cycle, including 

synergistic effects of other environmental factors, materiel duty cycle, and maintenance. There 

are different vibration procedures such as general vibration, loose cargo transportation, large 

assembly transportation, assembled aircraft store captive carriage, and free flight. The systems 

used at field tests were subject to operational service where they were configured for service use. 

The system was secured to the test fixture at the mounting points. The same type of mounting 

hardware used for traffic equipment operational service was used during the test. The stereo 

pedestrian sensor system hardware also passed this test.

The system was subject to FCC 15 Subpart B (unintentional radiators) testing for 

electromagnetic interference.(2) The category of unintentional radiators includes a variety of 

devices that contain clocks or oscillators and logic circuitry but that do not deliberately generate 

radio frequency emissions. Among the common unintentional radiators are personal computers, 

peripherals, receivers, radios, TVs, and cable TV home terminals. Two levels of radiation and 

conducted emissions limits for unintentional radiators are specified in FCC Part 15 Subpart B.(2)

The two levels are Class A digital devices (higher, less strict limits) and Class B digital devices 

(lower, more strict limits). The stereo pedestrian sensor system hardware passed both Class A 

and Class B tests.
23

PERFORMANCE RESULTS BASED ON FULL-DAY SCAN

During the field test, both regular images and detection images were stored in external USB hard 

disks. The data were used for offline performance analysis. The regular images were saved at a 

rate of 1 Hz and were mainly used for identifying the ground truths. A person manually scanned

all of the regular images to determine when pedestrian(s) were crossing the street. These ground 

truths were then cross checked with the detection images to determine whether or not the same 

pedestrians identified in the regular images were actually detected by the system. The detection 

images could also be used to evaluate the number of false calls per day.

One major issue related to manual scanning is the amount of images that need to be 

scanned. It was estimated that one SBC that can process two stereo cameras will accumulate 

15,552,000 images in 3 months. Since there were 17 SBCs installed during the field test, 

in 3 months, there will be over 260 million images that need to be manually scanned.

To obtain an accurate estimation of system performance, two scanning methods have been used: 

full-day scan and random sampling-based scan. The full-day scan is recommended to understand 

the true performance of a system. However, it is impossible to scan all of the data within a

limited time and budget. The performance results from a full-day scan provide the system 

performance in a snapshot. The random sampling approach is found in the section entitled 

“Performance Results Based on Statistical Sampling.”

A total of 28 days were manually scanned for the performance evaluation, covering all four cities 

and a variety of weather conditions (i.e., snowy, raining, sunny, and cloudy). The following 

evaluation criteria were used for the system performance estimation, and they have been used by 

researchers for pedestrian detection performance evaluation:

• Overall Error Rate (%) = ((Total Detection Count) − (Ground Truth Count))/

(Ground Truth Count).

• Missed Detection Error Rate (%) = (Missed Detection Count)/(Ground Truth Count).

• False Detection Error Rate (%) = (False Detection Count)/(Ground Truth Count).

In addition, another criterion was added, which is related to the average number of false 

detection counts (false calls) per day (24-h period). This performance is easy to understand and 

has a direct impact on the traffic flow when the pedestrian detection system is connected to the 

traffic signal system. For each city, the results that were manually scanned were listed, and the 

performance data were calculated.

Table 1 lists the scanning results for the test site in Somerville, MA, over 9 days. The table 

covers all weather conditions such as snowy, rainy, cloudy, and sunny.
24

Table 1. Test Site data for Somerville, MA.

Date and 

Day Weather

No. of Missed 

Pedestrians in 

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

No. of Missed 

Pedestrians in 

APS Locator Tone 

Triggering Zone

No. of False 

Calls in 

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

No. of False Calls 

in APS Locator 

Tone Triggering 

Zone

3/9/2011 

(Wed.)

Cloudy 0 (detected 32 out 

of 32 pedestrians)

0 (detected 75 out 

of 75 pedestrians)

0 0

3/19/2011

(Sat.)

Cloudy/

sunny

0 (detected 19 out 

of 19 pedestrians)

7 (detected 40 out 

of 47 pedestrians)

11 19

3/24/2011

(Thur.)

Cloudy/

rainy

1 (detected 23 out 

of 24 pedestrians)

1 (detected 48 out 

of 49 pedestrians)

10 17

3/28/2011

(Mon.)

Sunny 0 (detected 32 out 

of 32 pedestrians)

0 (detected 51 out 

of 51 pedestrians)

0 8

4/1/2011

(Fri.)

Snow 0 (detected 53 out 

of 53 pedestrians)

0 (detected 89 out 

of 89 pedestrians)

0 0

4/2/2011

(Sat.)

Cloudy/

rainy

0 (detected 69 out 

of 69 pedestrians)

0 (detected 109 out 

of 109 pedestrians)

1 3

4/5/2011

(Tue.)

Rainy 0 (detected 71 out 

of 71 pedestrians)

0 (Detected 163 out 

of 163 pedestrians)

1 1

6/1/2011 

(Wed.)

Cloudy/

rainy

1 (detected 64 out 

of 65 pedestrians)

3 (detected 186 out 

of 189 pedestrians)

0 0

6/3/2011

(Fri.)

Cloudy/

sunny

0 (detected 42 out 

of 42 pedestrians)

1 (detected 65 out

of 66 pedestrians)

17 36

The performance evaluation data for the test site in Somerville, MA, are listed in table 2. The 

overall positive detection rate for the detection in automated APS pushbutton actuation zone was 

over 99 percent, and the average number of false calls per day was about four. For the APS 

locator tone triggering zone, the positive detection rate was over 98 percent, and the average 

number of false calls per day was about 15.

Table 2. Performance evaluation results for Somerville, MA.

Performance Criterion

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

APS Locator Tone 

Triggering Zone

Ground truth count 407 878

Total detection count 445 997

Missed detection count 2 12

False detection count 40 131

Overall error rate 38/407 = 9.3 percent 119/878 = 13.6 percent

Missed detection error rate 2/407 = 0.5 percent 12/878 = 1.4 percent

False detection error rate 40/407 = 9.8 percent 131/878 = 14.9 percent

Positive detection rate 1 – 0.5 percent = 

99.5 percent

1 – 1.4 percent = 

98.5 percent

Average false count per day 40/9 = 4.4/day 131/9 = 14.6/day
25

In total, 9 days of data were manually scanned for the two test sites in Portland, ME (see 

table 3). The data also cover the weather conditions such as snowy, rainy, cloudy, and sunny. 

Table 3. Test data for the two test sites in Portland, ME.

Date and 

Day Weather

No. of Missed 

Pedestrians in 

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

No. of Missed 

Pedestrians in APS 

Locator Tone 

Triggering Zone

No. of False 

Calls in 

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

No. of False Calls 

in APS Locator 

Tone Triggering 

Zone

3/8/2011

(Tue.)

Cloudy/

snowy

2 (detected 80 out 

of 82 pedestrians)

0 (detected 137 out 

of 137 pedestrians)

0 10

3/9/2011

(Wed.)

Sunny 0 (detected 89 out 

of 89 pedestrians)

0 (detected 157 out 

of 157 pedestrians)

3 9

3/10/2011

(Thur.)

Rainy 0 (detected 34 out 

of 34 pedestrians)

0 (detected 73 out of 

73 pedestrians)

4 25

3/14/2011

(Mon.)

Partially 

sunny

0 (detected 73 out 

of 73 pedestrians)

0 (detected 162 out 

of 162 pedestrians)

13 36

3/21/2011

(Mon.)

Snow 0 (detected 31 out 

of 31 pedestrians)

0 (detected 103 out 

of 103 pedestrians)

2 4

3/25/2011

(Fri.)

Cloudy/

snowy

2 (detected 80 out 

of 82 pedestrians)

0 (detected 163 out 

of 163 pedestrians)

4 30

3/26/2011

(Sat.)

Cloudy 0 (detected 63 out 

of 63 pedestrians)

0 (detected 172 out 

of 172 pedestrians)

0 2

6/1/2011 

(Wed.)

Mostly 

cloudy

0 (detected 84 out 

of 84 pedestrians)

0 (detected 179 out 

of 179 pedestrians)

2 5

6/4/2011 

(Sat.)

Sunny 0 (detected 86 out 

of 86 pedestrians)

0 (detected 212 out 

of 212 pedestrians)

4 30

The performance evaluation data for the test sites in Portland, ME, are listed in table 4. The 

overall positive detection rate for the detection in automated APS button actuation zone was over 

99.7 percent, and average number of false calls per day was about four. For the APS locator tone 

triggering zone, the positive detection rate was 100 percent, and average number of false calls 

per day was about 17.

Table 4. Performance evaluation results for Portland, ME.

Performance Criterion

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

APS Locator Tone 

Triggering Zone

Ground truth count 624 1,358

Total detection count 654 1,509

Missed detection count 2 0

False detection count 32 151

Overall error rate 30/624 = 4.8 percent 143/878 = 11.1 percent

Missed detection error rate 2/624 = 0.3 percent 0/1358 = 0 percent

False detection error rate 32/624 = 5.1 percent 151/1358 = 11.1 percent

Positive detection rate 1 – 0.3 percent = 

99.7 percent

1 – 0 percent = 

100 percent

Average false count per day 32/9 = 3.6/day 151/9 = 16.8/day
26

Table 5 lists the scanning data for the test sites in Manchester, NH, over 5 days. The data cover 

weather conditions such as rainy, cloudy, and sunny.

Table 5. Test data for the two test sites in Manchester, NH.

Date and 

Day Weather

No. of Missed 

Pedestrians in 

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

No. of Missed 

Pedestrians in 

APS Locator Tone 

Triggering Zone

No. of False 

Calls in 

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

No. of False 

Calls in APS 

Locator Tone 

Triggering Zone

4/19/2011

(Tue.)

Rain 0 (detected 47 out 

of 47 pedestrians)

0 (detected 156 out 

of 156 pedestrians)

0 0

5/1/2011 

(Sun.)

Sunny 0 (detected 89 out 

of 89 pedestrians)

0 (detected 103 out 

of 103 pedestrians)

0 11

5/6/2011 

(Sat.)

Cloudy 1 (detected 47 out 

of 48 pedestrians)

1 (detected 170 out 

of 171 pedestrians)

5 47

5/12/2011

(Thur.)

Sunny 0 (detected 73 out 

of 73 pedestrians)

0 (detected 204 out 

of 204 pedestrians)

0 11

6/3/2011 

(Fri.)

Sunny 3 (detected 143 out 

of 146 pedestrians)

2 (detected 339 out 

of 341 pedestrians)

0 4

The performance evaluation data for the test sites in Manchester, NH, are listed in table 6. The 

overall positive detection rate for the detection in automated APS button actuation zone was over 

99 percent, and average number of false calls per day was about one. For the APS locator tone 

triggering zone, the positive detection rate was 99.7 percent, and average number of false calls 

per day was about 15.

Table 6. Performance evaluation results for Manchester, NH.

Performance Criterion

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

APS Locator Tone 

Triggering Zone

Ground truth count 403 975

Total detection count 404 1,045

Missed detection count 4 3

False detection count 5 73

Overall error rate 1/403 = 0.02 percent 70/975 = 7.2 percent

Missed detection error rate 4/403 = 0.1 percent 3/975 = 0.3 percent

False detection error rate 5/403 = 5.1 percent 73/975 = 7.5 percent

Positive detection rate 1 – 0.1 percent = 

99 percent

1 – 0.3 percent = 

99.7 percent

Average false count per day 4/5 = 0.8/day 73/5 = 14.6/day
27

Table 7 lists the scanning results for the test sites in Tucson, AZ, over 5 days. The weather 

during these 4 days was always sunny.

Table 7. Test data for two test sites in Tucson, AZ.

Date and 

Day Weather

No. of Missed 

Pedestrians in 

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

No. of Missed 

Pedestrians in 

APS Locator Tone 

Triggering Zone

No. of False 

Calls in 

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

No. of False 

Calls in APS 

Locator Tone 

Triggering Zone

5/6/2011 

(Fri.)

Sunny 1 (detected 7 out 

of 8 pedestrians)

0 (detected 8 out of 

8 pedestrians)

0 0

5/13/2011 

(Fri.)

Sunny 1 (detected 5 out 

of 6 pedestrians)

0 (detected 6 out of 

6 pedestrians)

1 0

5/17/2011 

(Tue.)

Mostly 

Clear

1 (detected 125 out 

of 126 pedestrians)

0 (detected 126 out 

of 126 pedestrians)

4 0

7/1/2011

(Fri.)

Sunny 2 (detected 24 out

of 26 pedestrians)

0 (detected 41 out 

of 41 pedestrians)

3 13

The performance evaluation data for the test sites in Tucson, AZ, are listed in table 8. The 

overall positive detection rate for the detection in automated APS button actuation zone was over 

95.9 percent, and the average number of false calls per day was about two. For the APS locator 

tone triggering zone, the positive detection rate was 100 percent, and the average number of false 

calls per day was about three.

Table 8. Performance evaluation results for Tucson, AZ.

Performance Criterion

Automated APS 

Actuation Zone

APS Locator Tone 

Triggering Zone

Ground truth count 191 226

Total detection count 192 240

Missed detection count 8 0

False detection count 9 14

Overall error rate 1/191 = 0.05 percent 14/226 = 6.2 percent

Missed detection error rate 8/191 = 4.1 percent 0/226 = 0 percent

False detection error rate 9/191 = 4.7 percent 14/226 = 6.2 percent

Positive detection rate 1 – 4.1 percent = 

95.9 percent

1 – 0 percent = 

100 percent

Average false count per day 9/5 = 1.8/day 14/5 = 2.8/day

Compared to the positive detection rate in other cities, it seems that the rate for Tucson, AZ, was

relatively low. This is because the evaluation data of the first 3 days in table 7 are from two test 

sites where the walk time extension application was installed for the first time. The parameters 

and zone configuration were not finalized during that time.

In summary, the overall positive detection rate for the automated APS actuation zone at all 

four cities was 98.5 percent, and the average number of false calls per day was 2.7. This 

performance is extremely good, and it implies that the stereo pedestrian detection system 

installed at the street intersections detected almost every pedestrian waiting to cross the street 
28

while causing almost no delay to the traffic flow. This performance has also been confirmed 

during stage II of this large-scale field test. By May 2012, seven systems were operational

24/7 for over 6 months. Currently, all of the systems are operational.
29

PERFORMANCE RESULTS BASED ON STATISTICAL SAMPLING

Since it is impractical to manually scan all of the images saved for performance evaluation, the 

statistical sampling theory was applied to reduce the number of images (samples) to be scanned. 

This approach is similar to the opinion poll where a small number of people are surveyed over a 

large population. One widely used sampling formula is as follows:

N

p p ME z (1− ) =

Figure 15. Equation. Margin of error.

Where ME represents the margin of error, z is the Z-score, p is the probability of an image 

containing a pedestrian, and N is the sample size. The Z-score is associated with the confidence 

interval (i.e., 90, 95, or 99 percent). Since there is not any knowledge about p, a value of 0.5 is 

used, which also gives the largest ME with a fixed Z-score and population size N. The margin 

of error is usually chosen as 3, 2, and 1 percent. For the confidence interval of 90, 95, and 

99 percent, the Z-score is 1.645, 1.96, and 2.58, respectively. 

Figure 15 is often applied when the simple random sample principle is used. In statistics, a 

simple random sample is a subset of samples chosen from a larger population. Each sample is 

chosen randomly and entirely by chance such that each individual has the same probability of 

being chosen at any stage during the sampling process. This formula for the margin of error 

assumes that there is an infinitely large population and thus does not depend on the size of the 

population of interest. According to the sampling theory, this assumption is valid as long as the 

sampling fraction is less than 5 percent.

Suppose the confidence interval is chosen as 95 percent. In this case, z = 1.96. It can be derived 

that for a margin of error of 3 percent, the sample size is 1,067. In other words, if one scans 

1,067 images out of 21,340 (i.e., 1,067/0.05) images, the results will have a margin of error of 

3 percent with 95 percent confidence. However, each of these 21,340 images must have at least 

1 pedestrian, which requires a manual scan as well.

In this approach, all of the images were divided into temporal categories as follows: 

• One entire year is divided into the following four seasons:

o Winter (December, January, and February).

o Spring (March, April, and May).

o Summer (June, July, and August).

o Fall (September, October, and November).

• One entire day is divided into the following three subcategories:

o Morning (6 a.m.–12 p.m.).
30

o Afternoon (12 p.m.–6 p.m.).

o Night (6 p.m.–6 a.m.). 

• Each subcategory (morning, afternoon, or night) is divided into 5-min intervals.

A large number of images was randomly sampled from each category and then combined to form 

a large pool of images. Although not all of these sampled images had pedestrians, there were at 

least more than 21,340 images that had pedestrians. From these sampled images, 1,090 images 

were manually and randomly selected, and each of them had at least 1 pedestrian. These images 

were then manually evaluated by staff personnel. The performance evaluation results are given 

in table 9. 

Table 9. Performance evaluation results based on random sampling.

Type of Detection 

Zone

Total 

Number of 

Pedestrians

Number of 

Pedestrians 

Detected

Number of 

Pedestrians 

Missed

Positive 

Detection 

Rate

(Percent)

Automated APS 

actuation zone

553 538 15 97.3

APS locator tone 

triggering zone

930 910 20 97.8

The positive detection rates are within the margin of error of 3 percent with 95 percent

confidence, which are similar to what was estimated from the full-day scanning. The number of 

false calls from random sampling was not estimated because it is impossible to know how many 

false calls are made in 1 day.

The overall quality of performance can be summed up by an observation by one of the city 

traffic engineers who helped in the evaluation process. Richard B. Nassi, P.E., Ph.D. stated in a 

personal communication to one of the authors that, “Tucson is experiencing wonderful results 

with the equipment and automated pedestrian detection has made our PUFFIN operations 

very effective.”
31

INTEGRATION WITH TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL SYSTEM

During stage II of this large-scale field test, stereo pedestrian detections systems were enabled to 

interact with the traffic signal system through APS pushbuttons. When pedestrians were detected 

in the automated APS actuation zone, a service request was made on behalf of the pedestrians. 

However, an APS locator is currently left on all the time. At the intersection of Commercial 

Street and Franklin Street in Portland, ME, APS buttons were not installed due to irregular 

distances between signal poles and ramps. Instead, the audible confirmation devices were 

installed. This inexpensive device informs pedestrians that they have been detected and that a 

service request has been automatically made for them.

Figure 16 through figure 29 shows site photos; the stereo cameras are encircled in red.

Figure 16. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on East Broadway at 

Fellowship Square in Tucson, AZ.
32

Figure 17. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on southeast corner of

North Campbell Avenue and East Blacklidge Drive in Tucson, AZ.
33

Figure 18. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at the intersection of 

West Kelso Street and North Oracle Road in Tucson, AZ.
34

Figure 19. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on the west side of the 

intersection at East Grant Road and North Palo Verde Boulevard in Tucson, AZ.
35

Figure 20. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at the intersection of 

McGrath Highway and Broadway in Somerville, MA.
36

Figure 21. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at the north crosswalk 

across McGrath Highway parallel to Broadway in Somerville, MA.
37

Figure 22. Photo. Two operational stereo pedestrian detection systems on the east side of 

McGrath Highway parallel to Broadway in Somerville, MA.
38

Figure 23. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on the south side of 

Broadway and the west side of McGrath Highway in Somerville, MA.
39

Figure 24. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on the northeast corner of 

Deering Avenue and Park Avenue in Portland, ME.
40

Figure 25. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at Deering Avenue and 

Park Avenue in Portland, ME.
41

Figure 26. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at Franklin Street and 

Commercial Street in Portland, ME.
42

Figure 27. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system on southeast corner of 

McGregor Street and Foundry Street in Manchester, NH.
43

Figure 28. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system along McGregor Street at 

Foundry Street in front of Catholic Medical Center in Manchester, NH.
44

Figure 29. Photo. Operational stereo pedestrian detection system at the west side of 

McGregor Street at Foundry Street at the Catholic Medical Center in Manchester, NH.

Since this research was conducted as part of FHWA’s SBIR, efforts are being made by the 

researchers to bring this product to the market in a timely fashion. Researchers have established a 

network of distributors in the traffic industry. They are also in the process of getting the stereo 

pedestrian detection products approved by States. A supply chain has been established for 

product manufacturing in quantity.
45

SUMMARY

Large-scale testing has been performed to measure the performance of stereo vision technology

for pedestrian sensing using statistical sampling relative to criteria established in cooperation 

with practicing traffic engineers of the jurisdictions hosting the tests. Testing was conducted by 

taking benchmark sample pictures using the same equipment used to sense the pedestrians and 

evaluating them. Measurements were made using a standardized test procedure. Results 

show that the systems reliably detected pedestrians with a minimal number of false alarms. 

Interestingly, the number of missed detections was not higher under rainy or snowy conditions.

In March 2010, under FHWA’s SBIR program, researchers conducted a large-scale field test 

project in Tucson, AZ; Somerville, MA; Portland, ME; and Manchester, NH. The stereo 

pedestrian detection systems were installed to evaluate their performance in the real-world 

environment under all weather conditions and extreme temperatures. In total, 17 systems were

installed at both midblock crossings and intersections in those four cities. When pedestrians 

were detected at crosswalk ramps, the system automatically actuated both regular and APS 

pushbuttons to make the service request on behalf of the pedestrians. System performances were 

evaluated using images saved in external USB hard disks. The overall positive detection rate for 

the automated APS actuation zone at all four cities was close to 98 percent, and the average 

number of false calls per day was less than three. This excellent performance has also been 

confirmed through the real operations of systems installed at the test sites. Currently, all of the 

systems are operational 24/7. Comments from the general public, including the blind and 

visually impaired community, are all positive. The impact of the system on street crossings by 

pedestrians who have little or no vision is being evaluated.

This successful project has demonstrated that the advanced image processing technologies using 

stereo cameras can be used to reliably detect pedestrians in a complex outdoor environment. 

Through automated actuation of pushbuttons based on the presence of pedestrians, this system 

can reduce the number of collisions between vehicles and pedestrians, help prevent unnecessary 

fatalities, and automatically extend the walk time for seniors and pedestrians in wheelchairs

without slowing down the traffic flow. 

47

RECOMMENDATIONS

Pedestrian interactions have critical implications for a variety of important traffic control and 

evaluation applications. As a result, enhancing the reliability and safety of operational use of 

pedestrian sensing technologies has been an area of interest to the Pedestrian Research 

Subcommittee and the Traffic Signal Systems Research Subcommittee of the Transportation 

Research Board and of the FHWA Offices of Research, Development and Technology. 

Stereo vision technology for sensing pedestrians was characterized in this study via standardized 

statistical sampling methods relative to standard statistical tests. This technology has been 

demonstrated to be an effective tool for evaluating the presence or absence of pedestrians as well 

as interacting with the pedestrian phases of traffic signal control applications. The results from 

the testing show that this technology may be effectively used to assist pedestrians who cannot or 

do not press the pedestrian pushbutton. The technology has a high level of reliability suitable for 

assisting visually disabled pedestrians. This study was conducted under SBIR 040-FH3 and 

therefore is limited to assessing the technology developed under that study. It did not address 

other pedestrian sensing technologies such as radar, light detection and ranging, and IR 

sensing technologies.

This study provides baseline information on how to conduct pedestrian sensing research. 

Further research into how to document the reliability and effectiveness of sensors for use with 

pedestrians is recommended.

49

APPENDIX—CERTIFIED LABORATORY TEST REPORTS

METHOD 501.4. HIGH-TEMPERATURE TEST(1)

The following certified laboratory test report contains supporting documentation and results of 

the testing performed for the research initiative in this report. The authors of this current study 

have not edited or changed the test report in this appendix except to remove more than 

one instance of the company logo within the document and to format the report.
50

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 1 of 12

Test Report

Company Migma Systems, Inc.

Address 1600 Providence Highway

Walpole, MA 02081

Contact Uma Venkataraman

Product Name Midblock

Serial Number(s) 1 & 2

Project Number G100146942

Test Performed Method 501.4 High Temperature

Standard MIL-STD-810F

Test Engineer Albert Noyes

Date Tested (Start, Stop) July 13 through July 16, 2010

Test Room/Area AMAP Lab

Photo Yes

Test Level(s) See Table 1.3-1

Deviation from Test Method None

Product Modification None

EUT Results Pass

Posted Filename G100146942BOX-003

Prepared by; 

Albert E. Noyes

Reviewed by; Mike 

Koffink Operations 

Manager

Report Date July 31, 2010

This report is for the exclusive use of Intertek's Client and is provided pursuant to the agreement between Intertek

and its Client. Intertek's responsibility and liability are limited to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Intertek

assumes no liability to any party, other than to the Client in accordance with the agreement, for any loss, expense

or damage occasioned by the use of this report. Only the Client is authorized to copy or distribute this report and

then only in its entirety. Any use of the Intertek name or one of its marks for the sale or advertisement of the tested

material, product or service must first be approved in writing by Intertek. The observations and test results in this

report are relevant only to the sample tested. This report by itself does not imply that the material, product, or

service is or has ever been under an Intertek certification program.
51

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 2 of 12

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 4

1.1 SCOPE......................................................................................................... 4

1.2 PURPOSE.................................................................................................... 4

1.3 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 4

1.4 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA........................................................................ 5

2. TEST ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................ 6

2.1 EUT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................... 6

2.2 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION .................................................................. 7

2.3 TEST EQUIPMENT...................................................................................... 7

2.4 PRODUCT DISPOSITION............................................................................ 7

3. TEST DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS ............................................................... 8

3.1 METHOD 501.4 HIGH TEMPERATURE......................................................................... 8

REVISION SUMMARY – The following changes have been made to this Report:

Date Project Project Pages(s)

No. Handler Description of Change

7/31/10 G100146942 Albert Noyes - Initial Release
52

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 3 of 12

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1.3-1 SUMMARY OF TEST REQUIREMENTS AND RESULTS............................................5

Table 2.3-1 TEST EQUIPMENT........................................................................................................7

CONFIGURATION PHOTOS....................................................................................................................10
53

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 4 of 12

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Scope

This report describes Method 501.4 High Temperature testing performed on July 13 through

July 16, 2010 on the Migma Midblock Cameras submitted by Migma Systems, Inc.. Testing was 

performed pursuant to MIL-STD-810F, Method 501.4 High Temperature.

Technical descriptions of the equipment under test, support equipment, test equipment,

test procedures and results are presented in the following sections.

1.2 Purpose

MIL-STD-810F, Method 501.4 High Temperature Test is for evaluating a products ability

to operate properly in a high temperature environment.

1.3 Conclusions

The Migma Midblock, P/N Migma Midblock was tested to the MIL-STD-810F, Method 501.4

High Temperature performance requirements in it’s as received condition. See Table 1.3-1 for a

summary of the test results
54

Report# 100146942BOX-001

Page 5 of 12

Table 1.3-1: Summary of Test Requirements and Results

Environmental Conditions During Testing: Ambient (�C): Per 507.4 Method Per 501.4 Pressure

(hPa): N/A

Pretest Verification Performed Yes Equipment under Test: Migma Midblock

Test Engineer(s): Albert Noyes EUT Serial Number(s): 1 & 2

Engineer’s Initials: Date Test

Performed: 7/13 – 7/16 Reviewer’s

Initials: Date Reviewed:

Requirements Results

MIL-STD-810F

Method 501.4 High

Temperature. 3 cycles as

Pass

1.4 Performance Criteria

Pass/Fail Criteria: The EUT will continue to operate as intended during a prolonged

exposure to a MIL-STD-810F, Method 501.4 High Temperature
55

Report# 100146942BOX-001

Page 6 of 12

2. Test Environment

2.1 EUT Description

The equipment under test (EUT) is: Migma Midblock

EUT 

Configuration

Description Manufacturer Part Number Serial Number

Traffic Camera system Migma Systems, Inc. Migma Midblock 1 & 2

Power supply upgraded with military temperature grade FET.

2.1.1 Support Equipment:

Asset

Number

Equipment

Description Manufacturer Model Number Serial Number CalibrationDue Date

- Remote PC - single 

board Migma Systems MM0510 64496SB0211 N/A

PC Power supply FSP Group Inc 9NA0840302 H00000059 N/A

Camera Power supplies - LD12125A - N/A

Cables:

Quantity Description

1 PC Power Cord
56

Report# 100146942BOX-002

Page 7 of 12

2.2 Test Facility Description

The test facility is located on the premises of Intertek at 70 Codman Hill Road, Boxborough, MA,

01719. Testing is performed in one or more of the following chambers: A

(A) Environmental Chamber Envirotronics 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(B) Environmental Chamber Envirotronics 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(C) Environmental Chamber Tenney 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(D) Environmental Agree Chamber CSZ 53in wide x 37in high x 53in deep

(E) Thermal Shock Chamber, Cincinnati Sub-Zero 16cu ft

2.3 Test Equipment

Table 2.3-1: Test Equipment

Asset

Number

Equipment

Description

Manufacturer Model Number Serial Number Calibration

Due Date

148-012 Environmental

Chamber Envirotronics SH27C 08015563-11264 8/27/10

All equipment used for testing has been calibrated according to methods and procedures

defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

2.4 Product Disposition

All items received for testing undergo an inspection to ensure proper working condition upon 

receipt and before return shipment. The Migma Midblock, P/N Migma Midblock passed the 

incoming inspection when received for testing July 19, through July 20, 2010. The Migma 

Midblock camera system was returned to Migma Systems, Inc. after completion of testing.
57

Report# 100146942BOX-001

Page 8 of 12

3. Test Descriptions and Results

3.1 METHOD 501.4 HIGH TEMPERATURE

3.1.1 Object

The objective of this test is to determine the ability of an electronic device to properly operate

during a prolonged exposure to a Method 501.4 High Temperature environment.

3.1.2 Procedure

1. Sample was examined visually for any defects prior to the start of testing and a pre-test 

functional check was performed.

2. Sample is placed into an environmental chamber and connected to the support 

equipment. The sample is then put into an operational state.

The environmental chamber is then programmed to run profile 5014 and the test is

started. This profile is setup to run this 24hr sequence 3 times.
58

Report# 100146942BOX-001

Page 9 of 12

3. Proper operation of the sample is monitored daily throughout the duration of the test.

Any change in operation is noted and included in this report.

4. After Testing allow the sample is allowed to stabilize at room ambient temp for 24hours.

5. Upon completion of the test the sample will be returned to Migma Systems, Inc.

for complete evaluation.

Testing of the EUT was performed in AMAP Lab (see Section 2.2 or Table 2.3-1).

3.1.3 Test Equipment

The following test equipment was used for this test: Refer to Table 2.3-1.

3.1.4 Climatic Conditions

The climatic conditions must comply with certain requirements during testing as called out in

MIL- STD-810F. These conditions were monitored throughout testing.

3.1.5 Confidence of Results and Deviations from Test Method

Confidence of results is obtained by continuously monitoring the temperature and

operational condition of the samples during testing.

3.1.6 Results

The Migma Midblock was tested to and passes the requirements for MIL-STD-810F. The

specific test is, Method 501.4 High Temperature. Table 1.3-1 for a summary of the test results

The above results pertain only to the specific item submitted for testing, identified by the

product’s model and serial numbers.
59

Report# 100146942BOX-001

Page 10 of 12

Configuration Photos
60

Report# 100146942BOX-001

Page 11 of 12

Comark

Migma Midblock

Standard: MIL-STD-810F

Test: 501.4 High Temperature

Photo: MidBlock Cameras in chamber

Test Engineer: Albert Noyes
61

Report# 100146942BOX-001

Page 12 of 12

Comark

Migma Midblock

Standard: MIL-STD-810F

Test: 501.4 High Temperature

Photo: Support Equipment

Test Engineer: Albert Noyes
62

METHOD 502.4. LOW-TEMPERATURE TEST(1)

The following certified laboratory test report contains supporting documentation and results of 

the testing performed for the research initiative in this report. The authors of this current study 

have not edited or changed the test report in this appendix except to remove more than 

one instance of the company logo within the document and to format the report.
63

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 1 of 12

Test Report

Company Migma Systems, Inc.

Address 1600 Providence Highway

Walpole, MA 02081

Contact Uma Venkataraman

Product Name Midblock

Serial Number(s) 1 & 2

Project Number G100146942

Test Performed Method 502.4 Low Temperature

Standard MIL-STD-810F

Test Engineer Albert Noyes

Date Tested (Start, Stop) July 19 through July 20, 2010

Test Room/Area AMAP Lab

Photo Yes

Test Level(s) See Table 1.3-1

Deviation from Test Method None

Product Modification None

EUT Results Pass

Posted Filename G100146942BOX-002

Prepared by; 

Albert E. Noyes

Reviewed by; Mike 

Koffink Operations 

Manager

Report Date July 31, 2010

This report is for the exclusive use of Intertek's Client and is provided pursuant to the agreement between Intertek

and its Client. Intertek's responsibility and liability are limited to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Intertek assumes no liability to any party, other than to the Client in accordance with the agreement, for any loss,

expense or damage occasioned by the use of this report. Only the Client is authorized to copy or distribute this

report and then only in its entirety. Any use of the Intertek name or one of its marks for the sale or advertisement

of the tested material, product or service must first be approved in writing by Intertek. The observations and test

results in this report are relevant only to the sample tested. This report by itself does not imply that the material,

product, or service is or has ever been under an Intertek certification program.
64

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 2 of 12

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 4

1.1 SCOPE......................................................................................................... 4

1.2 PURPOSE.................................................................................................... 4

1.3 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 4

1.4 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA........................................................................ 5

2. TEST ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................ 6

2.1 EUT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................... 6

2.2 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION .................................................................. 7

2.3 TEST EQUIPMENT...................................................................................... 7

2.4 PRODUCT DISPOSITION............................................................................ 7

3. TEST DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS ............................................................... 8

3.1 METHOD 502.4 LOW TEMPERATURE....................................................... 8

REVISION SUMMARY – The following changes have been made to this Report:

Date Project Project Pages(s)

No. Handler Description of Change

7/31/10 G100146942 Albert Noyes - Initial Release
65

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 3 of 12

List of Tables and Figures

TABLE 1.3-1 SUMMARY OF TEST REQUIREMENTS AND RESULTS ................... 5

TABLE 2.3-1 TEST EQUIPMENT.............................................................................. 7

CONFIGURATION PHOTOS.................................................................................... 10
66

Report# 100146942BOX-002

Page 4 of 12

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Scope

This report describes Method 502.4 Low Temperature testing performed on July 19 through July 

20, 2010 on the Migma Midblock Cameras submitted by Migma Systems, Inc.. Testing was 

performed pursuant to MIL-STD-810F, Method 502.4 Low Temperature.

Technical descriptions of the equipment under test, support equipment, test equipment, test 

procedures and results are presented in the following sections.

1.2 Purpose

MIL-STD-810F, Method 502.4 Low Temperature Test is for evaluating a products ability to 

operate properly in a Low temperature environment.

1.3 Conclusions

The Migma Midblock, P/N Migma Midblock was tested to the MIL-STD-810F, Method 502.4 Low 

Temperature performance requirements in it’s as received condition. See Table 1.3-1 for a

summary of the test results.
67

Report# 100146942BOX-002

Page 5 of 12

Table 1.3-1: Summary of Test Requirements and Results

Environmental Conditions During Testing: Ambient (�C): Per 507.4 Method Per 502.4 Pressure

(hPa): N/A

Pretest Verification Performed Yes Equipment under Test: Migma Midblock

Test Engineer(s): Albert Noyes EUT Serial Number(s): 1 & 2

Engineer’s Initials: Date Test

Performed: 7/19 – 7/20 Reviewer’s

Initials: Date Reviewed:

Requirements Results

MIL-STD-810F

Method 502.4 Low Temperature.

Pass

1.4 Performance Criteria

Pass/Fail Criteria: The EUT will continue to operate as intended during a prolonged exposure to 

a MIL-STD-810F, Method 502.4 Low Temperature.
68

Report# 100146942BOX-002

Page 6 of 12

2. Test Environment

2.1 EUT Description

The equipment under test (EUT) is: Migma Midblock

EUT 

Configuration

Description Manufacturer Part Number Serial Number

Traffic Camera system Migma Systems, Inc. Migma Midblock 1 & 2

Power supply upgraded with military temperature grade FET.

2.1.1 Support Equipment:

Asset

Number

Equipment

Description Manufacturer Model Number Serial Number CalibrationDue Date

- Remote PC - single 

board Migma Systems MM0510 64496SB0211 N/A

PC Power supply FSP Group Inc 9NA0840302 H00000059 N/A

Camera Power supplies - LD12125A - N/A

Cables:

Quantity Description

1 PC Power Cord
69

Report# 100146942BOX-002

Page 7 of 12

2.2 Test Facility Description

The test facility is located on the premises of Intertek at 70 Codman Hill Road, Boxborough, MA,

01719. Testing is performed in one or more of the following chambers: A

(A) Environmental Chamber Envirotronics 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(B) Environmental Chamber Envirotronics 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(C) Environmental Chamber Tenney 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(D) Environmental Agree Chamber CSZ 53in wide x 37in high x 53in deep

(E) Thermal Shock Chamber, Cincinnati Sub-Zero 16cu ft

2.3 Test Equipment

Table 2.3-1: Test Equipment

Asset

Number

Equipment

Description

Manufacturer Model Number Serial Number Calibration

Due Date

148-012 Environmental

Chamber Envirotronics SH27C 08015563-11264 8/27/10

All equipment used for testing has been calibrated according to methods and procedures

defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

2.4 Product Disposition

All items received for testing undergo an inspection to ensure proper working

condition upon receipt and before return shipment. The Migma Midblock, P/N Migma

Midblock passed the incoming inspection when received for testing July 19, through

July 20, 2010. The Migma Midblock camera system was returned to Migma Systems,

Inc. after completion of testing.
70

Report# 100146942BOX-002

Page 8 of 12

3. Test Descriptions and Results

3.1 METHOD 502.4 LOW TEMPERATURE

3.1.1 Object

The objective of this test is to determine the ability of an electronic device to properly

operate during a prolonged exposure to a Method 502.4 Low Temperature environment.

3.1.2 Procedure

1. Sample was examined visually for any defects prior to the start of testing and a pretest functional check was performed.

2. Sample is placed into an environmental chamber and connected to the

support equipment. The sample is then put into an operational state.

The environmental chamber is then programmed to run at -31 ̊C and the test is

started. This test is setup to run this as follows.

3. Proper operation of the sample is monitored daily throughout the duration of the test.

Any change in operation is noted and included in this report.

4. After Testing allow the sample is allowed to stabilize at room ambient temp for 24hours.

5. Upon completion of the test the sample will be returned to Migma Systems, Inc.

for complete evaluation.

Testing of the EUT was performed in AMAP Lab (see Section 2.2 or Table 2.3-1).
71

Report# 100146942BOX-002

Page 9 of 12

3.1.3 Test Equipment

The following test equipment was used for this test: Refer to Table 2.3-1.

3.1.4 Climatic Conditions

The climatic conditions must comply with certain requirements during testing as called out in

MIL- STD-810F. These conditions were monitored throughout testing.

3.1.5 Confidence of Results and Deviations from Test Method

Confidence of results is obtained by continuously monitoring the temperature and

operational condition of the samples during testing.

3.1.6 Results

The Migma Midblock was tested to and passes the requirements for MIL-STD-810F. The

specific test is, Method 502.4 Low Temperature. Table 1.3-1 for a summary of the test results

The above results pertain only to the specific item submitted for testing, identified by the

product’s model and serial numbers.
72

Report# 100146942BOX-002

Page 10 of 12

Configuration Photos
73

Report# 100146942BOX-002

Page 11 of 12

Comark

Migma Midblock

Standard: MIL-STD-810F

Test: 502.4 Low Temperature

Photo: MidBlock Cameras in chamber

Test Engineer: Albert Noyes
74

Report# 100146942BOX-002

Page 12 of 12

Comark

Migma Midblock

Standard: MIL-STD-810F

Test: 502.4 High Temperature

Photo: Support Equipment

Test Engineer: Albert Noyes
75

METHOD 507.4. HUMIDITY TEST(1)

The following certified laboratory test report contains supporting documentation and results of 

the testing performed for the research initiative in this report. The authors of this current study 

have not edited or changed the test report in this appendix except to remove more than 

one instance of the company logo within the document and to format the report.
76

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 1 of 12

Test Report

Company Migma Systems, Inc.

Address 1600 Providence Highway

Walpole, MA 02081

Contact Uma Venkataraman

Product Name Midblock

Serial Number(s) 1 & 2

Project Number G100146942

Test Performed Method 507.4 Humidity

Standard MIL-STD-810F

Test Engineer Albert Noyes

Date Tested (Start, Stop) July 21 through August 5, 2010

Test Room/Area AMAP Lab

Photo Yes

Test Level(s) See Table 1.3-1

Deviation from Test Method None

Product Modification None

EUT Results Pass

Posted Filename G100146942BOX-003

Prepared by; 

Albert E. Noyes

Reviewed by; Mike 

Koffink Operations 

Manager

Report Date August 31, 2010

This report is for the exclusive use of Intertek's Client and is provided pursuant to the agreement between Intertek

and its Client. Intertek's responsibility and liability are limited to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Intertek assumes no liability to any party, other than to the Client in accordance with the agreement, for any loss,

expense or damage occasioned by the use of this report. Only the Client is authorized to copy or distribute this

report and then only in its entirety. Any use of the Intertek name or one of its marks for the sale or advertisement

of the tested material, product or service must first be approved in writing by Intertek. The observations and test

results in this report are relevant only to the sample tested. This report by itself does not imply that the material,

product, or service is or has ever been under an Intertek certification program.
77

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 2 of 12

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 4

1.1 SCOPE......................................................................................................... 4

1.2 PURPOSE.................................................................................................... 4

1.3 CONCLUCSIONS......................................................................................... 4

1.4 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA........................................................................ 5

2. TEST ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................ 6

2.1 EUT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................... 6

2.2 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION .................................................................. 7

2.3 TEST EQUIPMENT...................................................................................... 7

2.4 PRODUCT DISPOSITION............................................................................ 7

3. TEST DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS ............................................................... 8

3.1 METHOD 507.4 HUMIDITY.......................................................................... 8

REVISION SUMMARY – The following changes have been made to this Report:

Date Project Project Pages(s)

No. Handler Description of Change

8/31/10 G100146942 Albert Noyes - Initial Release
78

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 3 of 12

List of Tables and Figures

TABLE 1.3-1 SUMMARY OF TEST REQUIREMENTS AND RESULTS ................... 5

TABLE 2.3-1 TEST EQUIPMENT.............................................................................. 7

CONFIGURATION PHOTOS.................................................................................... 10
79

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 4 of 12

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Scope

This report describes Method 507.4 Humidity testing performed on July 21 through August 5,

2010 on the Migma Midblock Cameras submitted by Migma Systems, Inc.. Testing was 

performed pursuant to MIL-STD-810F, Method 507.4 Humidity.

Technical descriptions of the equipment under test, support equipment, test equipment,

test procedures and results are presented in the following sections.

1.2 Purpose

MIL-STD-810F, Method 507.4 Humidity Test is for evaluating a products ability to

operate properly in a high humidity environment.

1.3 Conclusions

The Migma Midblock, P/N Migma Midblock was tested to the MIL-STD-810F, Method 507.4

Humidity performance requirements in it’s as received condition. See Table 1.3-1 for a summary

of the test results.
80

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 5 of 12

Table 1.3-1: Summary of Test Requirements and Results

Environmental Conditions During Testing: Ambient (�C): Per 507.4 Method 507.4

Humidity (%): Per 507.4 Pressure(hPa): N/A

Pretest Verification Performed Yes Equipment under Test: Migma Midblock

Test Engineer(s): Albert Noyes EUT Serial Number(s): 1 & 2

Engineer’s Initials: Date Test

Performed:

7/21/10 –

8/5/10

Reviewer’s

Initials: Date Reviewed:

Requirements Results

MIL-STD-810F

METHOD 507.4 HUMIDITY INCLUDING 24HR 

PRECONDITIONING SOAK AND 5CYLES AS 

DEFINED IN FIGURE 507.4-1 OF MIL-STD810F

Pass

1.4 Performance Criteria

Pass/Fail Criteria: The EUT will continue to operate as intended during a prolonged

exposure to a MIL-STD-810F, Method 507.4 Humidity environment.
81

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 6 of 12

2. Test Environment

2.1 EUT Description

The equipment under test (EUT) is: Migma Midblock

EUT Configuration

Description Manufacturer Part Number Serial Number

Traffic Camera system Migma Systems, Inc. Migma Midblock 1 & 2

Power supply upgraded with military temperature grade FET.

2.1.1 Support Equipment:

Asset

Number

Equipment

Description Manufacturer Model Number Serial Number CalibrationDue Date

- Remote PC - single 

board Migma Systems MM0510 64496SB0211 N/A

PC Power supply FSP Group Inc 9NA0840302 H00000059 N/A

Camera Power supplies - LD12125A - N/A

Cables:

Quantity Description

1 PC Power Cord
82

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 7 of 12

2.2 Test Facility Description

The test facility is located on the premises of Intertek at 70 Codman Hill Road, Boxborough, MA,

01719. Testing is performed in one or more of the following chambers: A

(A) Environmental Chamber Envirotronics 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(B) Environmental Chamber Envirotronics 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(C) Environmental Chamber Tenney 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(D) Environmental Agree Chamber CSZ 53in wide x 37in high x 53in deep

(E) Thermal Shock Chamber, Cincinnati Sub-Zero 16cu ft

2.3 Test Equipment

Table 2.3-1: Test Equipment

Asset

Number

Equipment

Description

Manufacturer Model Number Serial Number Calibration

Due Date

148-012 Environmental

Chamber Envirotronics SH27C 08015563-11264 8/27/10

All equipment used for testing has been calibrated according to methods and procedures

defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

2.4 Product Disposition

All items received for testing undergo an inspection to ensure proper working condition upon 

receipt and before return shipment. The Migma Midblock, P/N Migma Midblock passed the 

incoming inspection when received for testing July 21 through August 5, 2010. The Migma 

Midblock camera system was returned to Migma Systems, Inc. after completion of testing.
83

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 8 of 12

3. Test Descriptions and Results

3.1 METHOD 507.4 HUMIDITY

3.1.1 Object

The objective of this test is to determine the ability of an electronic device to properly operate

during a prolonged exposure to a Method 507.4 Humidity environment.

3.1.2 Procedure

1. Sample was examined visually for any defects prior to the start of testing and a pretest functional check was performed.

2. Sample is placed into an environmental chamber and connected to the

support equipment. The sample is then put into an operational state.

3. The environmental chamber is then programmed to run profile 5074 and the test started.

Profile 5074 starts with a 24hr preconditioning soak of 23°C @ 50%RH after which

the following cycle described below is followed. This 48hr cycle is repeated for a

total of 5 complete cycles. Max temp is programmed to +40 ̊C for this product.
84

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 9 of 12

4. Proper operation of the sample is monitored daily throughout the duration of the test.

Any change in operation is noted and included in this report.

5. After Testing allow the sample is allowed to stabilize at room ambient temp for 24hours.

6. Upon completion of the test the sample will be returned to Migma Systems, Inc.

for complete evaluation.

Testing of the EUT was performed in AMAP Lab (see Section 2.2 or Table 2.3-1).

3.1.3 Test Equipment

The following test equipment was used for this test: Refer to Table 2.3-1.

3.1.4 Climatic Conditions

The climatic conditions must comply with certain requirements during testing as called out in

MIL- STD-810F. These conditions were monitored throughout testing.

3.1.5 Confidence of Results and Deviations from Test Method

Confidence of results is obtained by continuously monitoring the temperature and

operational condition of the samples during testing.

3.1.6 Results

The Migma Midblock was tested to and passes the requirements for MIL-STD-810F. The

specific test is, Method 507.4 Humidity. Table 1.3-1 for a summary of the test results

The above results pertain only to the specific item submitted for testing, identified by the

product’s model and serial numbers.
85

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 10 of 12

Configuration Photos
86

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 11 of 12

Comark

Migma Midblock

Standard: MIL-STD-810F

Test: 507.4 Humidity

Photo: MidBlock Cameras in chamber

Test Engineer: Albert Noyes
87

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 12 of 12

Comark

Migma Midblock

Standard: MIL-STD-810F

Test: 507.4 Humidity

Photo: Support Equipment

Test Engineer: Albert Noyes
88

METHOD 506.4. RAIN TEST(1)

The following certified laboratory test report contains supporting documentation and results 

of the testing performed for the research initiative in this report. The authors of this current 

study have not edited or changed the test report in this appendix except to remove more than 

one instance of the company logo within the document and to format the report.
89

Report# 100146942BOX-004

Page 1 of 12

Test Report

Company Migma Systems, Inc.

Address 1600 Providence Highway

Walpole, MA 02081

Contact Uma Venkataraman

Product Name Midblock

Serial Number(s) 1 & 2

Project Number G100146942

Test Performed Method 506.4 Rain

Standard MIL-STD-810F

Test Engineer Albert Noyes

Date Tested (Start, Stop) October 25, 2010

Test Room/Area AMAP Lab

Photo Yes

Test Level(s) See Table 1.3-1

Deviation from Test Method None

Product Modification None

EUT Results Pass

Posted Filename G100146942BOX-004

Prepared by; 

Albert E. Noyes

Reviewed by; Mike 

Koffink Operations 

Manager

Report Date August 31, 2010

This report is for the exclusive use of Intertek's Client and is provided pursuant to the agreement between Intertek

and its Client. Intertek's responsibility and liability are limited to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Intertek assumes no liability to any party, other than to the Client in accordance with the agreement, for any loss,

expense or damage occasioned by the use of this report. Only the Client is authorized to copy or distribute this

report and then only in its entirety. Any use of the Intertek name or one of its marks for the sale or advertisement

of the tested material, product or service must first be approved in writing by Intertek. The observations and test

results in this report are relevant only to the sample tested. This report by itself does not imply that the material,

product, or service is or has ever been under an Intertek certification program.
90

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 2 of 12

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 4

1.1 SCOPE......................................................................................................... 4

1.2 PURPOSE.................................................................................................... 4

1.3 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 4

1.4 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA........................................................................ 5

2. TEST ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................ 6

2.1 EUT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................... 6

2.2 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION .................................................................. 7

2.3 TEST EQUIPMENT...................................................................................... 7

2.4 PRODUCT DISPOSITION............................................................................ 7

3. TEST DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS ............................................................... 8

3.1 METHOD 506.4 RAIN .................................................................................. 8

REVISION SUMMARY – The following changes have been made to this Report:

Date Project Project Pages(s)

No. Handler Description of Change

10/29/10 G100146942 Albert Noyes - Initial Release
91

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 3 of 12

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1.3-1 SUMMARY OF TEST REQUIREMENTS AND RESULTS............................................5

Table 2.3-1 TEST EQUIPMENT........................................................................................................7

CONFIGURATION PHOTOS......................................................................................................................9
92

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 4 of 12

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Scope

This report describes Method 506.4 Rain testing performed on October 25, 2010 on the

Migma Midblock Cameras submitted by Migma Systems, Inc. Testing was performed

pursuant to MIL- STD-810F, Method 506.4 Rain.

Technical descriptions of the equipment under test, support equipment, test equipment,

test procedures and results are presented in the following sections.

1.2 Purpose

MIL-STD-810F, Method 506.4 Rain Test is for evaluating a products ability to operate properly

in an outdoor rain/wet environment.

1.3 Conclusions

The Migma Midblock was tested to the MIL-STD-810F, Method 506.4 Rain performance 

requirements in it’s as received condition. See Table 1.3-1 for a summary of the test results.
93

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 5 of 12

Table 1.3-1: Summary of Test Requirements and Results

Environmental Conditions During Testing: Ambient (�C): Per 506.4 Method 506.4

Rain (%): Per 506.4 Pressure(hPa): N/A

Pretest Verification Performed Yes Equipment under Test: Migma Midblock

Test Engineer(s): Albert Noyes EUT Serial Number(s): 1 & 2

Engineer’s Initials: Date Test

Performed: 10/25/10 Reviewer’s

Initials: Date Reviewed:

Requirements Results

MIL-STD-810F

METHOD 506.4 RAIN, PROCEDURE III DRIP

Pass

1.4 Performance Criteria

Pass/Fail Criteria: The EUT will continue to operate as intended during a prolonged

exposure to a MIL-STD-810F, Method 506.4 Rain environment.
94

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 6 of 12

2. Test Environment

2.1 EUT Description

The equipment under test (EUT) is: Migma Midblock

EUT 

Configuratio

n

Description Manufacturer Part Number Serial Number

Traffic Camera system Migma Systems, Inc. Migma Midblock 1 & 2

Power supply upgraded with military temperature grade FET.

2.1.1 Support Equipment:

Asset

Number

Equipment

Description Manufacturer Model Number Serial Number CalibrationDue Date

- Remote PC - single 

board Migma Systems MM0510 64496SB0211 N/A

PC Power supply FSP Group Inc 9NA0840302 H00000059 N/A

Camera Power supplies - LD12125A - N/A

Cables:

Quantity Description

1 PC Power Cord
95

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 7 of 12

2.2 Test Facility Description

The test facility is located on the premises of Intertek at 70 Codman Hill Road, Boxborough, MA,

01719. Testing is performed in one or more of the following chambers: A

(A) Environmental Chamber Envirotronics 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(B) Environmental Chamber Envirotronics 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(C) Environmental Chamber Tenney 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(D) Environmental Agree Chamber CSZ 53in wide x 37in high x 53in deep

(E) Thermal Shock Chamber, Cincinnati Sub-Zero 16cu ft

(F) Rain/SPX tester, Intertek

2.3 Test Equipment

Table 2.3-1: Test Equipment

Asset

Number

Equipment

Description

Manufacturer Model Number Serial Number Calibration

Due Date

- SPX/RAIN tester Intertek SPX - 11/13/10

SAF186 Clock/Timer Fisher Scientific 870A 20398073 8/11/11

SAF262 Flow Valve ED&D - 5011510 11/13/10

All equipment used for testing has been calibrated according to methods and procedures

defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

2.4 Product Disposition

All items received for testing undergo an inspection to ensure proper working condition upon 

receipt and before return shipment. The Migma Midblock, P/N Migma Midblock passed the 

incoming inspection when received for testing October 25, 2010. The Migma Midblock camera 

system was returned to Migma Systems, Inc. after completion of testing.
96

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 8 of 12

3. Test Descriptions and Results

3.1 METHOD 506.4 RAIN

3.1.1 Object

The objective of this test is to determine the ability of an electronic device to properly operate during a 

prolonged exposure to a Method 506.4 Rain environment.

3.1.2 Procedure

1. Sample was examined visually for any defects prior to the start of testing and a pre-test 

functional check was performed.

2. Sample is placed into the rain chamber and connected to the support equipment. The 

sample is then put into an operational state.

3. The rain chamber is then set to run drip test at a flow rate of 1.7mm/minute with the samples at

a distance of 48cm from the drip head and then the test is started. This flow rate is maintained

for a period of 15 minutes while continually monitoring the samples for any change in

operating condition.

4. Any change in operation is noted and included in this report.

5. After Testing allow the sample is allowed to stabilize at room ambient temp for 24hours.

6. Upon completion of the test the sample will be returned to Migma Systems, Inc. for 

complete evaluation.

Testing of the EUT was performed in Safety Lab (see Section 2.2 or Table 2.3-1).

3.1.3 Test Equipment

The following test equipment was used for this test: Refer to Table 2.3-1.

3.1.4 Climatic Conditions

The climatic conditions must comply with certain requirements during testing as called out in MIL- STD810F. These conditions were monitored throughout testing.

3.1.5 Confidence of Results and Deviations from Test Method

Confidence of results is obtained by continuously monitoring the temperature and operational 

condition of the samples during testing.

3.1.6 Results

The Migma Midblock was tested to and passes the requirements for MIL-STD-810F. The specific test

is, Method 506.4 Rain. Table 1.3-1 for a summary of the test results

The above results pertain only to the specific item submitted for testing, identified by the

product’s model and serial numbers.
97

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 9 of 12

Configuration Photos
98

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 10 of 12

Comark

Migma Midblock

Standard: MIL-STD-810F

Test: 506.4 Rain

Photo: MidBlock Cameras in Rain/SPX chamber

Test Engineer: Albert Noyes
99

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 11 of 12

Comark

Migma Midblock

Standard: MIL-STD-810F

Test: 506.4 Rain

Photo: MidBlock Cameras in Rain/SPX chamber

Test Engineer: Albert Noyes
100

Report# 100146942BOX-003

Page 12 of 12

Comark

Migma Midblock

Standard: MIL-STD-810F

Test: 506.4 Rain

Photo: Support Equipment

Test Engineer: Albert Noyes
101

METHOD 521.2. ICING TEST(1)

The following certified laboratory test report contains supporting documentation and results of 

the testing performed for the research initiative in this report. The authors of this current study 

have not edited or changed the test report in this appendix except to remove more than 

one instance of the company logo within the document and to format the report.
102

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 1 of 12

Test Report

Company Migma Systems, Inc.

Address 1600 Providence Highway

Walpole, MA 02081

Contact Uma Venkataraman

Product Name Midblock

Serial Number(s) 1 & 2

Project Number G100146942

Test Performed Method 521.2 Icing

Standard MIL-STD-810F

Test Engineer Albert Noyes

Date Tested (Start, Stop) August 25 through August 26, 2010

Test Room/Area AMAP Lab

Photo Yes

Test Level(s) See Table 1.3-1

Deviation from Test Method None

Product Modification None

EUT Results Pass

Posted Filename G100146942BOX-005

Prepared by; 

Albert E. Noyes

Reviewed by; Mike 

Koffink Operations 

Manager

Report Date August 31, 2010

This report is for the exclusive use of Intertek's Client and is provided pursuant to the agreement between Intertek

and its Client. Intertek's responsibility and liability are limited to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Intertek assumes no liability to any party, other than to the Client in accordance with the agreement, for any loss,

expense or damage occasioned by the use of this report. Only the Client is authorized to copy or distribute this

report and then only in its entirety. Any use of the Intertek name or one of its marks for the sale or advertisement

of the tested material, product or service must first be approved in writing by Intertek. The observations and test

results in this report are relevant only to the sample tested. This report by itself does not imply that the material,

product, or service is or has ever been under an Intertek certification program.
103

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 2 of 12

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 4

1.1 SCOPE......................................................................................................... 4

1.2 PURPOSE.................................................................................................... 4

1.3 CONCLUCSIONS......................................................................................... 4

1.4 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA........................................................................ 5

2. TEST ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................ 6

2.1 EUT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................... 6

2.2 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION .................................................................. 7

2.3 TEST EQUIPMENT...................................................................................... 7

2.4 PRODUCT DISPOSITION............................................................................ 7

3. TEST DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS ............................................................... 8

3.1 METHOD 507.4 HUMIDITY.......................................................................... 8

REVISION SUMMARY – The following changes have been made to this Report:

Date Project Project Pages(s)

No. Handler Description of Change

8/31/10 G100146942 Albert Noyes - Initial Release
104

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 3 of 12

List of Tables and Figures

TABLE 1.3-1 SUMMARY OF TEST REQUIREMENTS AND RESULTS ................... 5

TABLE 2.3-1 TEST EQUIPMENT.............................................................................. 7

CONFIGURATION PHOTOS.................................................................................... 10
105

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 4 of 12

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Scope

This report describes Method 521.2 Icing testing performed on August 25 through August 26,

2010 on the Migma Midblock Cameras submitted by Migma Systems, Inc.. Testing

was performed pursuant to MIL-STD-810F, Method 521.2 Icing.

Technical descriptions of the equipment under test, support equipment, test equipment,

test procedures and results are presented in the following sections.

1.2 Purpose

MIL-STD-810F, Method 521.2 Icing Test is for evaluating a products ability to operate properly

in an icing environment.

1.3 Conclusions

The Migma Midblock, P/N Migma Midblock was tested to the MIL-STD-810F, Method 521.2

Icing performance requirements in it’s as received condition. See Table 1.3-1 for a summary of

the test results.
106

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 5 of 12

Table 1.3-1: Summary of Test Requirements and Results

Environmental Conditions During Testing: Ambient (�C): Per 507.4 Method Per 521.2 Pressure

(hPa): N/A

Pretest Verification Performed Yes Equipment under Test: Migma Midblock

Test Engineer(s): Albert Noyes EUT Serial Number(s): 1 & 2

Engineer’s Initials: Date Test

Performed:

8/25/10 –

8/26/10

Reviewer’s

Initials: Date Reviewed:

Requirements Results

MIL-STD-810F

Method 521.2 AS DEFINED IN PROCEDURE 1 

“GLAZE ICE” .

Pass. Occasional loss of signal was detected during 

application of spray. The unit did self recover quickly.

1.4 Performance Criteria

Pass/Fail Criteria: The EUT will continue to operate as intended allowing for

temporary disturbances with self recovery during a prolonged exposure to a MILSTD-810F, Method 521.2 Icing environment.
107

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 6 of 12

2. Test Environment

2.1 EUT Description

The equipment under test (EUT) is: Migma Midblock

EUT Configuration

Description Manufacturer Part Number Serial Number

Traffic Camera system Migma Systems, Inc. Migma Midblock 1 & 2

Power supply upgraded with military temperature grade FET.

2.1.1 Support Equipment:

Asset

Number

Equipment

Description Manufacturer Model Number Serial Number CalibrationDue Date

- Remote PC - single 

board Migma Systems MM0510 64496SB0211 N/A

PC Power supply FSP Group Inc 9NA0840302 H00000059 N/A

Camera Power supplies - LD12125A - N/A

Cables:

Quantity Description

1 PC Power Cord
108

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 7 of 12

2.2 Test Facility Description

The test facility is located on the premises of Intertek at 70 Codman Hill Road, Boxborough, MA,

01719. Testing is performed in one or more of the following chambers: A

(A) Environmental Chamber Envirotronics 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep 

(B) Environmental Chamber Envirotronics 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(C) Environmental Chamber Tenney 3ft wide x 3ft high x 3ft deep

(D) Environmental Agree Chamber CSZ 53in wide x 37in high x 53in deep

(E) Thermal Shock Chamber, Cincinnati Sub-Zero 16cu ft

2.3 Test Equipment

Table 2.3-1: Test Equipment

Asset

Number

Equipment

Description

Manufacturer Model Number Serial Number Calibration

Due Date

148-012 Environmental

Chamber Envirotronics SH27C 08015563-11264 8/27/10

All equipment used for testing has been calibrated according to methods and

procedures defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

2.4 Product Disposition

All items received for testing undergo an inspection to ensure proper working condition

upon receipt and before return shipment. The Migma Midblock, P/N Migma Midblock

passed the incoming inspection when received for testing July 21 through August 5,

2010. The Migma Midblock camera system was returned to Migma Systems, Inc. after

completion of testing.
109

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 8 of 12

3. Test Descriptions and Results

3.1 METHOD 521.2 ICING

3.1.1 Object

The objective of this test is to determine the ability of an electronic device to properly operate

during a prolonged exposure to a Method 521.2 Icing environment.

3.1.2 Procedure

1. Sample was examined visually for any defects prior to the start of testing and a pretest functional check was performed.

2. Sample is placed into an environmental chamber and connected to the

support equipment. The sample is then put into an operational state.

3. The environmental chamber is then programmed to run 0 ̊C and the test is started.

The sequence followed is according to Procedure 1 below from method 521.2.
110

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 9 of 12

4. Proper operation of the sample is monitored throughout the duration of the test.

Any change in operation is noted and included in this report.

5. After Testing allow the sample is allowed to stabilize at room ambient temp for 24hours.

6. Upon completion of the test the sample will be returned to Migma Systems, Inc.

for complete evaluation.

Testing of the EUT was performed in AMAP Lab (see Section 2.2 or Table 2.3-1).

3.1.3 Test Equipment

The following test equipment was used for this test: Refer to Table 2.3-1.

3.1.4 Climatic Conditions

The climatic conditions must comply with certain requirements during testing as called out in

MIL- STD-810F. These conditions were monitored throughout testing.

3.1.5 Confidence of Results and Deviations from Test Method

Confidence of results is obtained by continuously monitoring the temperature and

operational condition of the samples during testing.

3.1.6 Results

The Migma Midblock was tested to and passes the requirements for MIL-STD-810F. The

specific test is, Method 507.4 Humidity. Table 1.3-1 for a summary of the test results

The above results pertain only to the specific item submitted for testing, identified by the

product’s model and serial numbers.
111

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page10 of 12

Configuration Photos
112

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 11 of 12

Comark

Migma Midblock

Standard: MIL-STD-810F

Test: 521.2 Icing

Photo: MidBlock Cameras in chamber

Test Engineer: Albert Noyes
113

Report# 100146942BOX-005

Page 12 of 12

Comark

Migma Midblock

Standard: MIL-STD-810F

Test: 521.2 Icing

Photo: Cameras in Chamber

Test Engineer: Albert Noyes
114

METHOD 514.5. VIBRATION TEST(1)

The following certified laboratory test report contains supporting documentation and results of 

the testing performed for the research initiative in this report. The authors of this current study 

have not edited or changed the test report in this appendix except to remove more than 

one instance of the company logo within the document and to format the report.
115

13200 Levan Road

Livonia, MI 48150

Telephone: 734-591-9161

Facsimile: 734-432-0555

www.intertek.com

Test Report for:

MIGMA SYSTEMS, INC.

Attn: Ms. Tia Maria Silva

VIBRATION TEST

Two (2) Migma Mid-Block Cameras

Client PO No.: 105

Don Hartwick Project Manager Michael Wells

Project Manager Department Manager

October 27, 2010

Report No.: G100146942DET-006 Page 1 of 11
116

MIGMA SYSTEMS, INC Report# G100146942DET-006

October 27, 2010 Page 2 of 11

Client P.O. No.: 105

Attn: Ms. Tia Maria Silva

Migma Systems

1600 Providence Hwy

Walpole, MA 02081

Phone: (508) 660-0328

Fax: (508) 660-0288

Email Address: tsilva@migmasys.com

DATE RECEIVED: 10/22/2010

DATES TESTED: 10/23/2010 through 10/26/2010

WORK REQUESTED / APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS:

Per the client’s request and in accordance with MIL-STD-810F issued 2001/11/01 

along with our quotation number 500235542 dated 05/26/2010; perform Vibration 

Test.

DESCRIPTION OF TEST SAMPLES:

Two (2) Migma Mid-Block Cameras, sample numbers DET1010221054-001 and 

DET1010221054-002. Condition of Samples: Production

EQUIPMENT LIST:

Asset Descr Manufacturer M Ser

161130 VIBRATION CONTROLLER VIBRATION 8500 0e0634

161130. COMPUTER HP COMPAQ dc 5000 MXL4490JVV

161236 ACCELEROMETER PCB J353B15 96157

161233 ACCELEROMETER PCB J353B15 87860

160063 SHAKER, 4000 FORCE UNHOLTZ-DICKIE TC 208 427

160064 POWER AMPLIFIER UNHOLTZ-DICKIE TA115 none
117

MIGMA SYSTEMS, INC Report# G100146942DET-006

October 27, 2010 Page 3 of 11

Client P.O. No.: 105

VIBRATION TEST

Date Received: 10/22/2010

Date(s) Tested: 10/23/2010 through 10/26/2010

Description of Samples:

Two (2) Migma Mid-Block Cameras, sample numbers DET1010221054-001 and 

DET1010221054-002.

Test Procedure:

The test samples were secured to a vibration shaker utilizing attached mounting 

brackets. The test samples were subjected to a random vibration for one (1) hour 

from 20 to 2000G’s in each of the three mutually perpendicular axes in accordance 

with Figure 514.5C-17 of the specification and as described below:

FREQUENCY ACCELERATION

20 to 1000 Hz. 0.040 g2/Hz.

1000 to 2000 Hz. -6 d/B/octave

During testing the test samples were powered to verify operation.
118

MIGMA SYSTEMS, INC Report# G100146942DET-006

October 27, 2010 Page 4 of 11

Client P.O. No.: 105

VIBRATION TEST (cont’d)

Acceptance Criteria: None stated.

Results:

At the completion of testing the test samples showed no signs of visible damage 

and were operational. The test samples were returned to the Boston facility for 

additional testing and final evaluation.

Observation:

At the completion of the Vertical Axis, a lens on sample number DET1010221054-

001 was noted to be loose.

Appendix:

Appendix A – Photographs

Appendix B – Vibration Plots

Disposition of Test Samples:

At the completion of testing, the samples were returned to the client.

This report is for the exclusive use of Intertek's Client and is provided pursuant to the agreement between

Intertek and its Client. Intertek's responsibility and liability are limited to the terms and conditions of the

agreement. Intertek assumes no liability to any party, other than to the Client in accordance with the agreement,

for any loss, expense or damage occasioned by the use of this report. Only the Client is authorized to permit

copying or distribution of this report and then only in its entirety. Any use of the Intertek name or one of its marks

for the sale or advertisement of the tested material, product or service must first be approved in writing by

Intertek. The observations and test results in this report are relevant only to the sample tested. This report by

itself does not imply that the material, product, or service is or has ever been under an Intertek certification

program.
119

MIGMA SYSTEMS, INC Report# G100146942DET-006

October 27, 2010 Page 5 of 11

Client P.O. No.: 105

APPENDIX A – PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1: Test Set Up Fore-Aft Direction

Photograph 2: Test Set Up Lateral Direction
120

MIGMA SYSTEMS, INC Report# G100146942DET-006

October 27, 2010 Page 6 of 11

Client P.O. No.: 105

APPENDIX A – PHOTOGRAPHS (cont’d)

Photograph 3: Test Set Up Vertical Direction

Photograph 4: Loose Lens on Sample 1 Post Vertical Axis
121

MIGMA SYSTEMS, INC Report# G100146942DET-006

October 27, 2010 Page 7 of 11

Client P.O. No.: 105

APPENDIX A – PHOTOGRAPHS (cont’d)

Photograph 5: Loose Lens on Sample 1 Post Vertical Axis

Photograph 4: Loose Lens on Sample 1 Post Vertical Axis
122

MIGMA SYSTEMS, INC Report# G100146942DET-006

October 27, 2010 Page 8 of 11

Client P.O. No.: 105

APPENDIX B – VIBRATION PLOTS

Figure 1: Vibration Plot, Fore- Axis Direction
123

MIGMA SYSTEMS, INC Report# G100146942DET-006

October 27, 2010 Page 9 of 11

Client P.O. No.: 105

APPENDIX B – VIBRATION PLOTS (cont’d)

Figure 2: Vibration Plot, Lateral Direction
124

MIGMA SYSTEMS, INC Report# G100146942DET-006

October 27, 2010 Page 10 of 11

Client P.O. No.: 105

APPENDIX B – VIBRATION PLOTS (cont’d)

Figure 3: Vibration Plot, Vertical Direction
125

MIGMA SYSTEMS, INC Report# G100146942DET-006

October 27, 2010 Page 11 of 11

Client P.O. No.: 105

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

These Terms and Conditions are incorporated into the Intertek proposal made and submitted to you. The party executing this document (“Client”) indicates acceptance 

of this proposal and that it is agreed that a resulting contract exists between Client and Intertek which governs the performance of the stated services and the rights and 

obligations of the parties and that Intertek may proceed with the work.

2.0 PROPOSAL TERM

Unless otherwise stated in the proposal, this offer shall remain valid until accepted, but in no event for a period longer than thirty days from the date of the proposal.

3.0 CLIENT INFORMATION

Client represents that the information supplied by it or its agents to Intertek is accurate and complete and samples are representative, and Client has informed Intertek 

concerning any dangerous or potentially dangerous characteristics of such samples which could cause injury during the performance of the work or in the transporting 

of such samples and Client also acknowledges that Intertek is relying upon such information and samples or data in the preparation of this proposal without further 

verification by Intertek as to its accuracy or completeness. The Client agrees to hold Intertek harmless and indemnify Intertek from any liability of whatever kind or 

nature, including but not limited to court costs and reasonable attorneys fees if information provided by the Client is inaccurate or incomplete or samples are not 

representative. Intertek agrees that information received from the Client shall remain the property of the Client and will be returned to the Client upon demand, except 

for that which is necessary as a basis for the Intertek Reports. Client may designate in writing any information provided by Client to Intertek as confidential and 

proprietary. If Client has done so, Intertek will not release to third parties any such information without the prior written consent of the Client or only in response to a 

proper court order or process. As to that information, Intertek may make and retain copies. Client shall designate in writing to Intertek if it does not wish to have 

Intertek transmit any information, including test data and Reports, via fax or electronic means.

4.0 PROPOSAL, PRICE AND SCHEDULE

Intertek will work diligently to provide the services according to the costs and schedule stated in the referenced proposal. Client recognizes and agrees that the 

proposal is a good faith estimate of the costs for the services to be provided and times of completion, but such estimate is not a guarantee of the total costs or time that 

may be involved in completing the proposal. Intertek will not exceed the authorized estimate of costs without written authorization of Client. Samples will be shipped 

by Client to Intertek prepaid and will be returned collect or disposed of at Client’s expense within thirty (30) days after testing is completed, unless alternative 

arrangements are made by Client. Additional fees will be charged for unanticipated assembly or preparation of samples. Test services will not be initiated until 

satisfactory credit has been established with Intertek’s accounting department.

5.0 INVOICING

Invoices will generally be issued upon project completion. In certain instances, interim invoices may be issued. Invoices are due and payable to Intertek at its offices, 

within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of invoice, and client agrees to pay reasonable collection costs if necessary in the event of non-payment.

6.0 INSURANCE

Intertek declares that it maintains workers’ compensation and employer’s liability insurance on Intertek employees in a form and amount as required by applicable 

laws. This insurance does not cover any employees of Client or third parties who may be involved with the work to be performed, whether on property of Intertek, 

Client or third parties.

7.0 REPORTS

The Client agrees to waive any claim against Intertek and defend, indemnify, and hold Intertek harmless from any and all causes of action, lawsuit, proceedings or 

claims, including legal fees and expenses incurred by Intertek, allegedly arising as a result of unauthorized use of Intertek’s Reports. The Reports include all reports, 

laboratory test data, calculations, estimates, notes and other documents prepared by Intertek in the course of providing services to the Client. Reports will be made 

utilizing Intertek’s standard format unless otherwise agreed to in writing. The Client agrees to indemnify Intertek for any breach by the Client arising out of clause 3.0 

(Client Information) above requiring accurate and complete information and representative samples. Intertek retains any and all rights of ownership of Intertek’s 

concepts, ideas, inventions, patents or copyrights used by Intertek in preparing Intertek’s Reports and the provision of services to the Client. Only the client is 

authorized to copy or distribute this report and then only in its entirety, and the Client shall not use the Reports in a misleading manner. Client further agrees and 

understands that reliance upon the Reports is limited to the representations made therein. Any use of the Intertek name or one of its marks for the sale or advertisement 

of the tested material, product or service must first be approved in writing by Intertek. If Intertek becomes directly or indirectly involved in litigation as a result of 

misuse of its Reports, the Client agrees to compensate Intertek for its fees and expenses, including legal costs, in accordance with Intertek’s prevailing fee schedule 

and expense reimbursement policy.

8.0 LIMITED WARRANTY

Intertek warrants that if any of its completed services fail to conform to professional standard, Intertek will, at its own expense, perform corrective services of the type 

originally performed as may be reasonably required to correct such defects, of which Intertek is notified in writing within six months of the completion of services. No 

other representation, express or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this Agreement, or in any report, opinion, document or otherwise.

9.0 LIMITS OF LIABILITY

Intertek’s liability is limited as follows:

9.1 The Client agrees to limit Intertek’s liability arising from Intertek’s professional activity, errors, or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of Intertek 

shall not exceed Intertek’s total fee for the services rendered on the project in question, except in the case of a finding of gross negligence or willful misconduct on the 

part of Intertek by a court of competent jurisdiction.

9.2 Intertek shall be discharged from all liability to the Client for all claims for loss, damage or expense unless a claim is made within three (3) months of the date at 

which the damage, defect or alleged non-performance became apparent to the Client, and the process of law served no later than two (2) years from the provision of 

services by Intertek.

9.3 Intertek shall not be liable to the Client for any consequential damages incurred by Client due to the fault of Intertek, regardless of the nature of this fault, whether 

it was committed by Intertek, its employees, agents or subcontractors. Consequential damages include, but are not limited to, loss of use and loss of profit.

9.4 The Client agrees to extend any and all limitations, indemnifications, and waivers provided by the Client to Intertek to those individuals and organizations Intertek 

retains for proper execution of the work. These shall be deemed to include but are not necessarily limited to Intertek’s officers and employees and their heirs and 

assigns, as well as Intertek’s agents, subcontractors and their officers, employees, heirs and assigns.

9.5 Client acknowledges that testing, including sample preparation and transportation, may damage or destroy Client’s product. Client agrees to hold Intertek harmless 

from any and all responsibility for such alteration.

9.6 The Client agrees Intertek shall not be responsible for any injuries to the Client’s representatives while attending to or observing testing at Intertek’s facility. If 

testing takes place at the Client’s facility, Client agrees that Intertek will not operate and shall not be responsible for any of Client’s equipment and that although 

Intertek agrees to abide by Client’s safety procedures, Intertek shall not be responsible for injury to any of Client’s personnel.

10.0 GOVERNING LAW

This proposal, and any work performed pursuant to this proposal, shall be governed by the laws of the jurisdiction within which the Intertek facility making the 

proposal is located. Any action brought hereon shall be venued in said jurisdiction.

11.0 SEVERABILITY

Any provision of this proposal that may be held invalid, void or unenforceable for any reason, shall not affect any other term or condition of this proposal, and such 

term or condition shall be replaced or interpreted to accomplish the intent of the parties.

12.0 MODIFICATIONS

No modification, waiver or amendment of any of these terms and conditions shall be binding upon Intertek unless identified in writing as to modification, waiver or 

amendment of such terms and conditions, and such writing is signed by an agent of Intertek acknowledging the modification, waiver or amendment.
126

CFR47 FCC PART15, SUBPART B: 2009 EMISSIONS TESTS(2)

The following certified laboratory test report contains supporting documentation and results of 

the testing performed for the research initiative in this report. The authors of this current study 

have not edited or changed the test report in this appendix except to remove more than 

one instance of the company logo within the document and to format the report.
127

13200 Levan Road

Livonia, MI 48150

Telephone: 734-591-9161

Facsimile: 734-432-0555

www.intertek.com

EMC TEST REPORT

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001

Project Number: G100146942

Report Issue Date: July 26, 2010

Product Designation: MigmaMidblock

Standards: CFR47 FCC Part15, Subpart B:2009

Tested by: Client:

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. Migma Systems

70 Codman Hill Road 1600 Providence Highway

Boxborough, MA 01719 Walpole, MA 02081

Report prepared by Report reviewed by

Xavier Zambrano Michael Murphy

October 27, 2010

Report No.: G100146942DET-006 Page 1 of 11

This report is for the exclusive use of Intertek's Client and is provided pursuant to the agreement between Intertek 

and its Client. Intertek's responsibility and liability are limited to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Intertek 

assumes no liability to any party, other than to the Client in accordance with the agreement, for any loss, expense or 

damage occasioned by the use of this report. Only the Client is authorized to permit copying or distribution of this 

report and then only in its entirety. Any use of the Intertek name or one of its marks for the sale or advertisement of 

the tested material, product or service must first be approved in writing by Intertek. The observations and test results 

in this report are relevant only to the sample tested. This report by itself does not imply that the material, product, or 

service is or has ever been under an Intertek certification program

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 1 of 14
128

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

1 Introduction and Conclusion

The tests indicated in section 2.0 were performed on the product constructed as described in section 3.0. 

The remaining test sections are the verbatim text from the actual data sheets used during the 

investigation. These test sections include the test name, the specified test Method, a list of the actual 

Test Equipment Used, documentation Photos, Results and raw Data. No additions, deviations, or 

exclusions have been made from the standard(s) unless specifically noted.

Based on the results of our investigation, we have concluded the product tested complies with the 

requirements of the standard(s) indicated. The results obtained in this test report pertain only to the 

item(s) tested.

2 Test Summary

2 Test Summary

Section Test Full Name Result

3 Client Information

4 Description of Equipment Under Test

5 System Setup and Method

6 Radiated Emissions (CFR47 FCC Part15, Subpart B: 2009)

Pass

AC Mains Conducted Emissions (CFR47 FCC Part15, Subpart B:

7 2009

8 Revision History

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 2 of 14
129

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

3 Client Information

Client Information

3 Client Information

Company: Migma Systems

1600 Providence Highway

Walpole, MA 02081

Contact: Mrs. Uma Venkataraman

Telephone: (508) 660-0328

Fax:

Email: uma@migmasys.com

4 Description of Equipment Under Test

Equipment

Under Test

Video System Migma Systems MigmaMidblock 1 & 2

Receive Date: 07/01/201

Good

Production

Received Condition:

Type:

Description of Equipment under test Under Test

The equipment under test is a video system

Equipment Under Test Power Configuration

Rated Voltage Rated Current Rated Frequency Number of Phases

120VAC 1.2A 60Hz Single

Operating modes of the EUT

No. Descriptions of EUT Exercising

1 Unit

2

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 3 of 14
130

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

Issued: 07/26/2010

System Setup and Method

Cables

ID Description Length

(m)

Shielding Ferrites Termination

1 AC Mains 2 None None Plastic

2 (2x) BMC/Twisted Pair 2 None None Metallic

Support

Description Manufacturer Model Number Serial Number

Monitor (PAN1) Panasonic WV-BM80 49W10776

5.1 Method:

Part 15 B of FCC CFR 47. ANSI C63.4

5.2 EUT Block Diagram:

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 4 of 14
131

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

6 Radiated Emissions

6.1 Method

Tests are performed in accordance with CFR47 FCC Part15, Subpart B:2009

TEST SITE: 10m ALSE

The 10m ALSE is 13m (Length) x 21m (Depth) x 10m (Height) with the effective size in terms of space 

from the tips of the absorber is 12m (Length) x 20m (Depth) x 8.5m (Height). This chamber achieves 

broadband performance using a unique arrangement of hybrid and ferrite tile absorber. This chamber has 

a built in 3m diameter turntable (Embedded type). The metal structure of the table makes electrical 

connection around the entire circumference of the turntable to the ground plane with a metal brush type 

connection. The turntable is located on one end of the chamber and the antennas are mounted 3 and 10 

meters away at the other end of the chamber on the adjustable an Antenna Mast. The antenna mast is a 

non-conductive bore sighted type with remote control of antenna height and polarization. The Antenna 

Mast and the turntable can be remotely controlled through the controller located in the adjacent Control 

room. A wooden table 80 cm high is used for table-top equipment.

Measurement Uncertainty

For radiated emissions, U lab (3.5 dB at 3m and 3.5 dB at 10m below 1 GHz, and 4.2 dB at 3m above 1

GHz) < U CISPR (5.2 dB), which is the reference value in CISPR 16-4-2 Table 1, hence the compliance of 

the product is only based on the measured value, and no measurement uncertainty correction is required, 

based on CISPR 22 and CISPR 11 (for 2006 and later revisions) Clause 11.

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 5 of 14
132

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

Issued: 07/26/2010

Sample Calculations

The field strength is calculated by adding the Antenna Factor and Cable Factor, and subtracting the 

Amplifier Gain (if any) from the measured reading. The basic equation with a sample calculation is as 

follows:

FS = RA + AF + CF – AG

Where FS = Field Strength in dB V/m

RA = Receiver Amplitude (including preamplifier) in dB V 

CF = Cable Attenuation Factor in dB

AF = Antenna Factor in dB AG = Amplifier Gain in dB

In the following table(s), the reading shown on the data table reflects the preamplifier gain. An example 

for the calculations in the following table is as follows.

Assume a receiver reading of 52.0 dB V is obtained. The antenna factor of 7.4 dB and cable factor of

1.6 dB is added. The amplifier gain of 29 dB is subtracted, giving a field strength of 32 dB V/m. This value 

in dB V/m was converted to its corresponding level in V/m.

RA = 52.0 dB V AF = 7.4 dB/m CF = 1.6 dB

AG = 29.0 dB

FS = 32 dB V/m

To convert from dB V to V or mV the following was used:

UF = 10(NF / 20) where UF = Net Reading in V

NF = Net Reading in dB V

Example:

FS = RA + AF + CF – AG = 52.0 + 7.4 + 1.6 – 29.0 = 32.0

UF = 10(32 dB V / 20) = 39.8 V/m

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 6 of 14
133

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

Issued: 07/26/2010

6.2 Test Equipment Used:

Asset Description Manufacturer Model Serial Cal Date Cal Due

ROS002 9kHz to 3GHz EMI Test Receiver Rohde & Schwartz

ESCI

1166.5950

K03 100067

03/26/20

10

03/26/20

11

145003 Preamplifier (150 KHz to 1.3 GHz) Hewlett Packard 8447D

2443A040

77

09/16/20

09

09/16/20

10

145106 Bilog Antenna (30MHz - 5GHz) Sunol Sciences JB5 A111003

06/01/20

09

09/01/20

10

DAV003 Weather Station Davis Instruments 7400

PE80529A

39A

06/11/20

10

06/11/20

11

145400

Cable Huber and Suhner Sucoflex

106

233089

004

05/01/20

09

07/31/20

10

145406

Cable Huber and Suhner Sucoflex

106

233096

002

05/01/20

09

07/31/20

10

145407

Cable Huber and Suhner Sucoflex

106

233089

001

05/01/20

09

07/31/20

10

145414

Cable Huber and Suhner Sucoflex

106

233089

002

05/01/20

09

07/31/20

10

Software Utilized:

Name Manufacturer Version

Excel 2003 Microsoft (11.8231.8221) SP3

EMI Boxborough.xls Intertek 4/17/09

6.3 Results

The sample tested was found to Comply.

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 7 of 14
134

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

6.4 Setup Photographs:

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 8 of 14
135

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

6.5 Test Data:

Radiated Emissions

Company: MigmaMidblock Systems Antenna & Cables :N Bands: N, LF, HP, SHF

Model #: MigmaMidblock Antenna: 145-106 10M Ver.txt 145-106 10M HOR.txt

Serial #: 1&2 Cable(s) 10 M TrackA Cables.txt NONE

Engineers: Xavier Zambrano Location: Client’s Barometer: DAV003 Filter: NONE

Project # G100086017 Date(s): 07/13/10

Standard: FCC Part 15/Cispr22 Class A Temp/Humidity/Pressure: 24 46% 999

Receiver: ROS002 Limit Distance (m): 10:

PreAmp: preamplifier 145-003.txt Test Distance (m) 10:

Net = Reading (dBuV/m) + Antenna Factor (dB1/m) + Cable Loss (dB) - Preamp Factor (dB) - Distance Factor (dB)

Peak: PK Quasi-Peak: QP Average: AVG RMS: RMS; NF = Noise Floor, RB = Restricted Band; Bandwidth denoted as RBW/VBW

Detector

Type

Ant.

Pol. 

(V/H)

Frequency

MHz

Reading 

dB(uV)

Antenna

Factor 

dB(1/m)

Cable

Loss 

dB

Pre-amp

Factor 

dB

Distance

Factor 

dB

Net 

dB(uV/m)

Limit 

dB(uV/m)

Margin 

dB

Bandwidth

QP V 57.273 51.03 7.25 1.27 27.31 0.00 32.24 40.00 -7.76 120/300 kHz

QP V 71.587 20.61 7.90 1.40 27.30 0.00 2.61 40.00 -37.39 120/300 kHz

QP V 143.179 20.00 13.17 1.86 26.94 0.00 8.09 40.00 -31.91 120/300 kHz

QP V 186.1286 33.46 11.57 2.04 26.68 0.00 20.39 40.00 -19.61 120/300 kHz

QP V 200.449 47.37 12.96 2.10 26.60 0.00 35.82 40.00 -4.18 120/300 kHz

QP V 229.078 44.21 11.51 2.22 26.80 0.00 31.13 40.00 -8.87 120/300 kHz

QP H 57.27 38.57 7.13 1.27 27.31 0.00 19.66 40.00 -20.34 120/300 kHz

QP H 171.809 41.75 11.73 1.99 26.77 0.00 28.70 40.00 -11.30 120/300 kHz

QP H 186.128 28.90 11.25 2.04 26.68 0.00 15.51 40.00 -24.49 120/300 kHz

QP H 200.447 46.48 12.64 2.10 26.60 0.00 34.62 40.00 -5.38 120/300 kHz

QP H 229.081 53.37 11.20 2.22 26.80 0.00 39.98 40.00 -0.02 120/300 kHz

QP H 401.903 44.79 15.68 2.81 28.01 0.00 35.27 47.00 -11.73 120/300 kHz

Test Personnel: Xavier Zambrano Test Date: 7/13/2010

Product Standard: FCC subpart 15 Test Levels: Class A

Input Voltage: 120VAC

Pretest Verification Ambient Temperature: 24 oC

w/ BB Source: No Relative Humidity: 46 %

Atmospheric Pressure: 999 mbars

Deviations, Additions, or Exclusions: None

7 AC Mains Conducted Emissions

7.1 Method:

Tests are performed in accordance with CFR47 FCC Part15, Subpart B:2009

TEST SITE:

The EMC Lab has two Semi-anechoic Chambers and one Shielded Chamber. AC Mains Power is 

available at 120, 230, and 277 Single Phase; 208, 400, and 480 3-Phase. Large reference ground-planes 

are installed in the general lab area to facilitate EMC work not requiring a shielded environment.

Measurement Uncertainty 

For conducted emissions, U lab (3.2 dB in worst case) < U CISPR (3.6 dB), which is the reference value in 

CISPR 16-4-2 Table 1, hence the compliance of the product is only based on the measured value, and no 

measurement uncertainty correction is required, based on CISPR 22 and CISPR 11 (for 2006 and later 

revisions) Clause 11.

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 9 of 14
136

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

Sample Calculations

The following is how net line-conducted readings were determined:

NF = RF + LF + CF + AF

Where NF = Net Reading in dB V

RF = Reading from receiver in dB V

LF = LISN Correction Factor in dB

CF = Cable Attenuation Factor in dB

AF = Antenna Factor in dB AG = Amplifier Gain in dB

To convert from dB V to V or mV the following was used:

UF = 10(49.1 dB V / 20) = 285.1 V/m

Example:

NF = RF + LF + CF + AF = 28.5 + 0.2 + 0.4 + 20.0 = 49.1 dB V

UF = 10(49.1 dB V / 20) = 285.1 V/m

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 10 of 14
137

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

7.2 Test Equipment Used:

Asset Description Manufacturer Model Serial Cal Date Cal Due

147149 Spectrum Analyzer Hewlett Packard 8591E

3346A022

58

03/11/20

10

03/11/20

11

145005 Conducted Cable Site 1 Hutton RG58/U none

11/01/20

06

11/01/20

07

145005 LISN: 50 Ohm/50 microHenry Solar Electronics

9252-50-

R-24-BNC 941725

01/27/20

10

01/27/20

11

DS22A Attenuator, 20dB Mini Circuits

20dB, 50 

ohm DS22A

09/17/20

09

09/17/20

10

Dav001 Weather Station Davis Instruments 7400

PE80519A

61

06/11/20

10

06/11/20

11

Software Utilized:

Name Manufacturer Version

Excel 2003 Microsoft (11.8231.8221) SP3

EMI Boxborough.xls Intertek 4/17/09

7.3 Results:

The sample tested was found to Comply.

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 11 of 14
138

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

7.4 Setup Photographs:

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 12 of 14
139

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

7.5 Data:

Conducted Emissions

Company: MigmaMidblock Systems Receiver: 147149

Model #: MigmaMidblock Cable: CBLBNC51_1-5-2011.txt

Serial #: 1&2 LISN 1: LISN145005_[1]_1-27-2011.txt

Engineers: Xavier Zambrano Location: EMC LISN 2: LISN145005[L2]1-16-10.txt

Project # G100086017 Date(s): 07/13/10 LISN 3: NONE.

Standard: FCC Part 15 Subpart B Class B LISN 4: NONE.

Barometer DAV001 Temp/Humidity/Pressure: 22 54% 998 Attenuator: DS22A 09-17-2010.txt

Voltage/Frequency: 120VAC/60Hz Frequency Range: 0.150 - 30MHz

Net is the sum of worst-case lisn, cable, & attenuator losses, and initial reading, factors are not shown

Peak: PK Quasi-Peak: QP Average: AVG RMS: RMS; NF = Noise Floor; Bandwidth denoted as RBW/VBW

Detector

Type

Frequency

MHz

Reading

Line 1 

dB(uV)

Reading

Line 2 

dB(uV)

Reading

Line 3 

dB(uV)

Reading

Line 4 

dB(uV)

Net 

dB(uV)

QP

Limit 

dB(uV)

Margin 

dB

Bandwidth

QP 0.151 32.98 28.20 53.10 65.94 -12.84 9/30 kHz

QP 0.272 26.21 15.95 46.29 61.06 -14.77 9/30 kHz

QP 0.363 14.00 14.94 34.95 58.66 -23.71 9/30 kHz

QP 0.870 11.48 14.45 34.55 56.00 -21.45 9/30 kHz

QP 1.014 11.40 13.05 33.16 56.00 -22.84 9/30 kHz

QP 14.317 9.75 16.24 36.93 60.00 -23.07 9/30 kHz

QP 28.635 26.11 27.34 48.39 60.00 -11.61 9/30 kHz

Detector

Type

Frequency

MHz

Reading

Line 1 

dB(uV)

Reading

Line 2 

dB(uV)

Reading

Line 3 

dB(uV)

Reading

Line 4 

dB(uV)

Net 

dB(uV)

Average

Limit 

dB(uV)

Margin 

dB

Bandwidth

AVG 0.151 9.54 13.25 33.37 55.94 -22.58 9/30 kHz

AVG 0.272 11.45 7.71 31.53 51.06 -19.53 9/30 kHz

AVG 0.363 3.37 5.52 25.53 48.66 -23.13 9/30 kHz

AVG 0.870 1.98 4.57 24.67 46.00 -21.33 9/30 kHz

AVG 1.014 1.14 2.24 22.35 46.00 -23.65 9/30 kHz

AVG 14.317 4.10 5.85 26.54 50.00 -23.46 9/30 kHz

AVG 28.635 16.12 20.54 41.59 50.00 -8.41 9/30 kHz

Test Personnel: Xavier Zambrano Test Date: 7/13/2010

Product Standard: FCC subpart 15 Test Levels: Class A

Input Voltage: 120VAC

Pretest Verification Ambient Temperature: 22 oC

w/ BB Source: No Relative Humidity: 54 %

Atmospheric Pressure: 998 mbars

Deviations, Additions, or Exclusions: None

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 13 of 14
140

Intertek

Report Number: 100146942BOX-001 Issued: 07/26/2010

8 Revision History

Revision

Level

Date Report Number Notes

0 7/26/2010 100146942BOX-001 Original Issue

EMC Report for Migma Systems on the MigmaMidblock Page 14 of 14
141

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The participation of many traffic engineers at the Arizona Department of Transportation, 

MassDOT, MaineDOT, and New Hampshire Department of Transportation is acknowledged.

Their dedication to the pedestrians of their cities and their hard work made this 

project successful.

143

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Defense. (2000). Department of Defense Test Method Standard for 

Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests, Report No. MIL-STD810F, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://www.

gd-itronix.com/upload/pdf/mil-std-810f.pdf. 

2. Federal Communications Commission. (2001). Code of Federal Regulations: 

Telecommunication, Title 47, Part 15, Subpart B, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2001-title47-

vol1/pdf/CFR-2001-title47-vol1.pdf.

3. Trentacoste, M.F. (2010). “Spotlight on Senior Mobility,” Public Roads, 73(4). Obtained 

from: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/10janfeb/03.cfm.

4. Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 

Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm.

5. Google Maps. (2012). East Roger Road at North 1st Avenue test site in Tucson, AZ. Scale: 

100 percent. Generated by: Bo Ling via Google Maps online. Obtained from:

http://maps.google.com/. Site last accessed: August 23, 2012.

6. Google Maps. (2012). North Campbell Avenue at East Blacklidge Drive test site in Tucson, 

AZ. Scale: 100 percent. Generated by: Bo Ling via Google Maps online. Obtained from: 

http://maps.google.com/. Site last accessed: August 6, 2012.

7. Google Maps. (2012). East Grant Road at North Palo Verde Boulevard test site in Tucson, 

AZ. Scale: 100 percent. Generated by: Bo Ling via Google Maps online. Obtained from: 

http://maps.google.com/. Site last accessed: August 6, 2012.

8. Google Maps. (2012). East Broadway Boulevard at Fellowship Square test site in Tucson, 

AZ. Scale: 100 percent. Generated by: Bo Ling via Google Maps online. Obtained from: 

http://maps.google.com/. Site last accessed: August 6, 2012.

9. Google Maps. (2012). West Kelso Street/North Oracle Road test site in Tucson, AZ. Scale: 

100 percent. Generated by: Bo Ling via Google Maps online. Obtained from: 

http://maps.google.com/. Site last accessed: August 6, 2012.

10. Google Maps. (2012). Intersection at McGrath Highway and Broadway in Somerville, MA. 

Scale: 100 percent. Generated by: Bo Ling via Google Maps online. Obtained from: 

http://maps.google.com/. Site last accessed: August 23, 2012.

11. Google Maps. (2012). Deering Avenue/Park Avenue test site in Portland, ME. Scale: 

100 percent. Generated by: Bo Ling via Google Maps online. Obtained from: 

http://maps.google.com/. Site last accessed: August 23, 2012.
144

12. Google Maps. (2012). Commercial Street/Franklin Street test site in Portland, ME. Scale: 

100 percent. Generated by: Bo Ling via Google Maps online. Obtained from: 

http://maps.google.com/. Site last accessed: August 23, 2012.

13. Google Maps. (2012). Aerial view of Medical Center test site at McGregor Street and 

Foundry Street in Manchester, NH. Scale: 100 percent. Generated by: Bo Ling via Google 

Maps online. Obtained from: http://maps.google.com/. Site last accessed: August 23, 2012.
145

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Gibson, D.R., Lang, B., Ling, B., Venkataraman, U., and Yang, J. (2009). “Detecting 

Pedestrians,” Public Roads, 73(2).

2. Gibson, D.R., Dong, S., Ling, B., Venkataraman, U., and Zelfman, M. (2009).

“Multipedestrian Tracking,” Public Roads, 69(5).

3. Ling, B., Gibson, D.R., Tiwari, S., and Li, Z. (2010). “A Multi-Pedestrian Detection and 

Counting System Using Fusion of Stereo Camera and Laser Scanner,” SPIE Proceedings,

7798, Saint Louis, MO.

4. Ling, B. and Gibson, D.R. (2013). Motorcycle Detection and Counting Using Stereo 

Camera, IR Camera and Microphone Array, SPIE 2013 Electronic Imaging, 

Burlingame, CA.
HRDo-10/09-12(WEB)E