Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52012SC0430

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Part I Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Annual Progress Report on the activities of the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings (JTI JUs) in 2011 /\* SWD/2012/0430 final \*/**

  

5.           Progress
achieved by the ENIAC JU

1.1.
Introduction to the ENIAC JU

The ENIAC Joint
Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "ENIAC JU") was established
by Council Regulation (EC) 72/2008 of 20 December 2007 as a public-private
partnership between the European Commission, the participating Member and Associated States (by now 22 countries)[1]
and AENEAS[2],
a non-profit industrial association of R&D actors in the field of
semiconductors.

The ENIAC JU has been set
up for a period up to 31 December 2017 with the main objective to tackle the
research and innovation in nanoelectronics technologies and their integration
in smart systems. The goal is to define and implement a Strategic Research
Agenda (SRA) on Nanoelectronics-Based Systems in Europe. ENIAC JU aims to help
European industry consolidate and reinforce its position in nanoelectronics
technologies and systems.

The nanoelectronics
industry is the provider of all integrated circuits found in all devices and
equipment requiring either standalone computational capacity or interaction
with human beings or their environment. Progress of the past decades in work
efficiency was largely driven by such smart systems and devices. It is evident
that personal computers, cell phones and related personal devices improved the
life quality of people overall. These devices however are only the visible part
of the applications of integrated circuits. The embedded systems cover the
whole field of exploiting the advances of nanoelectronics to embed smart
capability in more and more systems, vehicles, traffic management, sensors,
lighting just to mention a few examples surrounding us.

The strategic importance
of nanoelectronics and embedded systems was recognized and triggered the
establishment of ENIAC and ARTEMIS JUs as a way to improve European
competitiveness in these enabling fields. First of all, they allow for a
concerted effort at the European level through the funding of R&D projects
where the industry is a major actor. This is done through Strategic Research
Agendas established by the related ETPs, i.e. AENEAS in the case of ENIAC. The
vision was to reduce duplication and improve the cooperation between the
R&D public and private actors in Europe. Furthermore this helped to cope
with the fast increasing R&D costs in nanoelectronics due to extreme
miniaturization. Funding down to innovation is increasingly necessary to help
this field address the innovation gap and bridge R&D to market. This is
helped to keep innovation capability in Europe instead of producing high class
research further industrialized elsewhere.

In 2011, the impact of
strong initiatives such as the High-Level Group on Key Enabling Technologies
(KET) produced a positive influx on the activities of the ENIAC JU. Increased
support by Member States allowed the ENIAC JU to successfully execute 2 calls.
As a result the previous down-going trend in funding has been reversed.
Moreover, the provision for a KET-related call in the Annual Work Programme
2012 was approved at the end of 2011. By this approval, the partnership
acknowledged that higher levels of Technological Readiness must be included and
should get the appropriate attention. A further preparation for the 2012 KET
call was the launch of a KET Expression of Interest enquiry, which triggered a
very good response and shows opportunities for further significant increases in
the future budget execution of the JU.

It coordinates research
activities through competitive calls for proposals to enhance the further
integration and miniaturization of devices, and increase their functionalities
while delivering new materials, equipment and processes, new architectures,
innovative manufacturing processes, disruptive design methodologies, new
packaging and ‘systemising’ methods. It will drive and be driven by innovative
high-tech applications in communication and computing, transport, health care
and wellness, energy and environmental management, security and safety, and
entertainment.

1.1.1.
Budget

The maximum EU
contribution to the ENIAC JU covering running costs and R&D activities is
set to € 450 million paid from the appropriations in the general budget of the
European Union allocated to the theme "Information and Communication
Technologies" of the Specific Programme "Cooperation" under the
FP7. The research activities of the entity are supported also through financial
contributions from the ENIAC member States amounting to at least 1.8 times the
EU contribution (i.e. at least € 810 million for a total EU
contribution of € 440 million) and through in-kind contributions by
research and development organisations participating in projects, which at
least match the contribution of the public authorities.

1.1.2.
Governing structure

The ENIAC JU is managed by
an Executive Director. Its governance structure comprises a Governing Board
(GB), a Public Authorities Board (PAB) and an Industry and Research Committee
(IRC).

1.2.
Outline of the main activities and
achievements in 2011

1.2.1.
Key milestones

A decline in effective commitments to funding by the
ENIAC member States occurred in previous years. 2011 was the first year of
reversed trend. This trend is expected to continue in 2012.

In 2011 ENIAC JU:

Launched 2 calls for
proposals (4th and 5th);

Launched a call for
Expression of Interest in pilot lines;

Tuned the selection
procedures to quantify the synergy of project proposals with national and
European priorities; and

Addressed the 1.8 factor
included in the Council regulation setting up the ENIAC JU, to correct the
deviating trend noticed over the first 4 years.

1.2.2.
Organisation of the team in ENIAC JU

The composition of the
ENIAC JU executive team developed significantly in 2011, with the recruitment
of additional staff. On 31 December, the team is composed of 6 Temporary agents
and 7 contract agents (against 5 and 5 in 2010), as foreseen in ENIAC multi
annual staff policy plan.

1.2.3.
Address the 1.8 ratio

The decision was taken by
the Public Authority Board to reduce the ENIAC JU's participation to 15% of the
total of the eligible costs and up to 52% of the ENIAC member State contributions granted to the calls for proposals. This is resulting from the observation
that the 1.8 ratio between the ENIAC JU and the member States grants to the
projects would likely not be achieved at the life end of ENIAC JU, in the
present trend of a lowering ratio.

This decision should
result in a (close to) 1.8 ratio, under the two following assumptions; first,  ENIAC JU will consume the maximum EU contribution in the Council
Regulation; second, the ENIAC member States will fund their participants at
similar funding rates as in the past (i.e. achieving a total ENIAC member
States and ENIAC funding rate of around 44%).

1.2.4.
Progress in the implementation of the
Strategic Research Agenda

The Annual Work Programme
2011 is based on the "Vision, Mission and Strategy for European Micro- and
Nanoelectronics", jointly set out with CATRENE. The topics are shown in
the table below.

APPLICATIONS || TECHNOLOGY

Automotive and Transport || Intelligent Electric Vehicle || Design Technology || Managing Complexity

Safety in Traffic || Managing Diversity

Co-operative Traffic Management || Designing for Reliability and Yield

Communication and Digital Lifestyle || Internet Multimedia Services || Semiconductor Process and Integration || Know-how on Advanced and Emerging Semiconductor Processes

Evolution to a Digital Lifestyle || Competitiveness through Semicond. Process Differentiation

Self-organizing Networks || Opportunities in System in Package

Short-range Convergence || Equipment, Materials and Manufacturing || Advanced CMOS - 1Xnm & 450mm

Energy Efficiency || Sustainable and Efficient Energy Generation || More than Moore

Energy Distribution and Management - Smart Grid || Manufacturing

Reduction of energy consumption || The Multi Annual Strategy Plan of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking (MASP 2010) Note: Grand Challenges in bold letters on white background are selected in the AWP2011 to be included in the call(s) to be launched in 2011.

Health Care and Aging Society || Home Healthcare

Hospital Healthcare

Heuristic Healthcare

Safety and Security || Consumer and Citizen Security

Securing the European Challenging Applications

Enabling Technologies for Trust, Security and Safety

In bold letters on
white background are the topics which were open for proposals, while the ones
that have not been selected are on grey background. In 2011, all the technology
fields and 9 of the 16 application fields were called for (same as in 2010),
which may raise the question of the full implementation of the SRA. However it
has been decided that for the 2012 calls, all applications and technology
fields will be included.

The situation on the 40
projects already selected over the first 4 years is illustrated by the
following chart.

1.2.5.
Governance - Major decisions taken by the
Governing Board and other JU bodies

2011 was the first full
year of implementation of the ENIAC JU under its own management and related
bodies (Governing Board, Public Authorities Board, Executive Director and
Industry and Research Committee).

In 2011, the European
Court of Auditors gave a qualified opinion on the reliability of the JU annual
accounts 2010 because the Budgetary Outturn Account and its reconciliation to
the Economic Outturn Account, required by EC Accounting Rule 16 ‘Presentation
of budget information in the annual accounts’, had not been included in the
accounts. This issue was the consequence of a difference of opinion between the
ENIAC JU and the Commission about the effective date of autonomy of the ENIAC
JU. The European Court of Auditors set the date of autonomy at 26 July 2010.
Furthermore, the European Court of Auditors raised a number of comments (e.g.
on the internal control systems of the ENIAC JU) which the Governing Board will
follow up with the Executive Director, as stated in the assessment accompanying
the Annual Activity Report for 2011 of the Executive Director.

The running of the
Governing Board (GB) and the Public Authority Board (PAB)was smooth in 2011.
The Governing Board held 3 meetings in 2011, while the Public Authority Board
met 5 times.

The main decisions taken
by the Governing Board during the year were related to Annual
Implementation Plan 2012 and Annual Budget Plan 2012. Besides, the
ENIAC GB had 12 written procedures:

1.
Adoption of the Multi-annual Staff Policy Plan
(MSPP) for years 2012-2014

2.
Approval of the preliminary draft Annual Budget
Plan (ABP) 2012 including ENIAC-GB-109A-11

3.
Draft Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) 2012

4.
Adoption of the Annual Activity Report 2010 and
its analysis and assessment

5.
Amendment to the AIP 2011

6.
Adoption of the 2010 Annual Accounts

7.
Amendment to the AIP 2011, ABP 2011 and MSPP
2012-2014

8.
Delegation of the Staff Regulation Implementing
Rules to the Executive Director

9.
Approval of the amended annual accounts

10. Amendment to the AIP 2011 and ABP 2011

11. Annual Audit Report

12. Adoption of the AIP 2012 and ABP 2012

Important decisions of the
Public Authority Board included the launch of 2 calls, the work
programme of 2012 and the launch of a call for Expression of Interests on pilot
lines related to Key Enabling Technologies (KET). Nanoelectronics is one the 6
fields identified as KET by the report of the related High Level Group[3]
for which the implementation of pilot lines is an essential means to support to
innovation. Moreover the ENIAC PAB had 7 written procedures:

1.
Adoption of the decision to launch the fourth Call
for proposals

2.
Amendment of the Annual Work Programme 2011

3.
Adoption of the decision to launch the fifth
Call for proposals

4.
Mandate to the Executive Director to enter
negotiations for Call 2011-1

5.
Mandate to the Executive Director to enter
negotiations for Call 2011-2

6.
Adoption of the Annual Work Programme 2012

7.
Projects Selection and Funding

1.2.6.
Outcome of 1st interim
evaluation

In accordance with Article 11.2 the Commission had to carry out an
interim evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JU with the assistance of
independent experts by the end of 2010. A panel of 8 independent experts was
invited by the Commission to simultaneously evaluate both ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs
as they were set up using an identical design. Please refer to ARTEMIS -
section 4.2 to see the outcome of the first interim evaluation.

1.2.7.
Main communication activities

The ENIAC JU executes a
communication plan through a contract with AENEAS in the name of its
stakeholders. The main actions reported by ENIAC for 2011 were:

Publication of the Annual
Activity Report for 2010;

Issue of quarterly
reports to the GB showing progress versus plan;

Organization of a National
Funding Authorities day;

Face to face meetings with
public authorities, notably with France, Germany, Netherlands, Romania, Spain,
U.K., the Czech republic, Hungary, Poland, Ireland;

Co-organization with the
other Joint Undertakings of the "Innovation in Action" event
at the European Parliament;

4 press releases with
satisfactory impact;

Co-organization of the European
Nanoelectronic Forum

Introduction of the
"ENIAC JU Innovation Award" to recognize the projects approaching
completion or recently completed that produced the most impactful innovations;

Participation in several
events in Germany, Austria, Italy, Romania, sponsored events in France and Germany;

Presentation at several conferences
including at the Seventh International Nanotechnology Conference on
Communication and Cooperation (INC7) in Albany, New York, the opening address
at ESSCIRC/ESSDERS conference (Helsinki), presentation at SEMATECH Forum
(Dresden), EuroSimE conference in Linz, and at the Nanolectronics days in Rome
and NanoVeneto in Mestre.

1.2.8.
Success story

The project E3Car
started in February 2008 with the aim to tackle the main challenges in the
management of electrical vehicle power train as well as reducing the energy
lost in the intermediate stages of the power chain. This project was given an
innovation award in November 2011 for its major achievements in many
developments on several key components, in particular: the improvement of the
power conversion and distribution by 10% and the increase of the energy
efficiency by 35% overall.

The project achieved 28
demonstrators and generated an architectural view of the electrical vehicle.
The project dynamics generated 7 more collaborative projects on electric
mobility mobilizing more than 100 partners with a total budget of €180 M,
thereby ensuring the future of European capability to roll out full electrical
vehicle technology.

1.3.
Call implementation

The ENIAC JU supports
R&D activities through open and competitive calls for proposals published
on a yearly basis, to attract the best European research ideas and capacities
in the field of nanoelectronics. The programme is open to organisations in the
EU Member States and Associated Countries. Selected projects are co-financed by
the ENIAC JU and the countries that have joined ENIAC. The ENIAC JU implements
significant parts of the above referred Strategic Research Agenda.

Funding decisions under
the ENIAC JU Annual Work Programme are made on the basis of proposals submitted
upon a call. Proposals describe planned research activities and give
information on the applicants and the costs. The ENIAC JU evaluates all
eligible proposals, using independent experts in order to rank the proposals on
the basis of pre-established evaluation criteria.

Following the evaluation,
the Public Authority Board of the ENIAC JU decides on the selection of
proposals and the allocation of funding (ENIAC JU and national funding).

The ENIAC JU then negotiates
with selected proposals taking into account the maximum public funding
allocated and the recommendations for changes, if any. If negotiations are
successfully concluded, grant agreements are signed with ENIAC JU. Participants
from ENIAC member States also conclude national grant agreements with their own
national funding authorities as they normally also receive a national financial
contribution.

In 2011, the ENIAC JU
implemented 2 calls for proposals. This significantly helped in closing
the gap with the intended total spending of the ENIAC JU by the end of its
lifetime. The first call was a 2 steps procedure, with a project outline
submission phase. The second call was implemented as a single step one, due to
limited available time. The evaluation procedures were both based on consensus
panel meetings.

Each full project proposal
(FPP) was initially evaluated by four individual external experts. For each
FPP, a consensus meeting between these experts was subsequently organised and
following all the consensus meetings, a panel meeting of external experts under
the chairmanship of the ED was held. The panel thus produced the final
evaluation result for each proposal after an in-depth discussion on the basis
of the 4 individual reports from the experts.

The 5 evaluation
criteria used were:

№ || Evaluation criterion || Score || Weight || Threshold

1. || Relevance and contributions to the objectives of the call || /10 ||  1 || 6

2. || R&D innovation and technical excellence || /10 ||  1 || 6

3. || S&T approach and work plan || /10 || 1 || 6

4. || Market innovation and market impact || /10 ||  2 || 6

5. || Quality of consortium and management || /10 ||  1 || -

|| Total || /60 || 30/60

Furthermore a call
for Expression of Interest for pilot lines on nanoelectronics in the
framework of KET's was conducted at the end of 2011. Since the outcome of the
submission was planned for February 2012, the Commission shall present the
outcome of this activity in its next year's report on the progress achieved by
the ENIAC JU.

1.4.
Call 4 ENIAC-2011-1

1.4.1.
Summary information

Call Identifier || ENIAC-2011-1

Publication date || 23 February 2011

Deadline for submission of Project Outlines (POs) - Stage 1 || 21 April 2011

Evaluation of Project Outlines - Stage 1 || April/May 2011

Feedback on PO assessment || 06 May 2011

Deadline for submission of Full Project Proposals (FPP) - Stage 2 || 16 June 2011

Evaluation of Full Project Proposals  - Stage 2 || July 2011

Closing of negotiations for the selected proposals || October 2011

Funding approval || From December 2011

Indicative Total budget (in €) || € 70.5 millions

EU contribution after evaluation || €  20.1 millions

In-kind contribution after evaluation || € 67.2 millions

Where relevant, the contribution  from the Member States or National funding, or other contributions || € 33.0 millions

Reference to call topics || See the  section "SRA implementation".

The figure below
represents graphically the respective funding by Member State:

1.4.2.
Analysis of proposals submitted

1.4.2.1.
Stage 1 – Project Outlines

20 project outlines
were submitted. The funding requested by participants reached a total of
€348.1M (including the following contribution from the MS: €106.6M, and ENIAC
JU: €58.3M).

Regarding typology of participants: 102 participants
were Research organizations, 95 industrials and 73 SMEs. The funding requested
by SMEs amounted to a total of €93.5M (National contribution: €16.9 M, and
ENIAC JU contribution: €43.1 M).

The geographical distribution of participants is
represented in the table below. France is well represented in terms of
participants, before the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Spain.

1.4.2.2.
Stage 2 – Full Project Proposals

Out of the 20 POs, 9
FPPs were successfully submitted by the deadline, all eligible for
evaluation. The total funding requested amounted to €200.6 M, (National
contribution €59.4 M, JU contribution: €33.5 M

As regards SMEs, the
funding requested was: National contribution €13.6 M, JU contribution €7.2 M

The distribution of the participants
in the FPPs by participant type is illustrated below:

Type participant || Nr of participants in the Project Outlines || Nr of participants in the Full Project Proposals || Nr of participants in the proposals selected for funding || Participants success rate

Public Bodies || || || ||

Research organisations || 102 || 58 || 31 || 30,4%

Higher or secondary education || || || ||

Private for profit (excl. education) || 95 || 59 || 38 || 40,0%

SMEs || 73 || 66 || 39 || 53,4%

Others || || || ||

Total || 270 || 183 || 108 || 40,0%

As for the
geographical distribution of the participants in the FPPs, the Netherlands take the lead with more than 40 representatives, followed by France (30-35) and Italy (25-30).

Evaluation
results

9 Full Project
Proposals (FPP) submitted for the Call 2011 were
evaluated. All satisfied the eligibility criteria for FPP.  The evaluation was
conducted according to the methodology described in the previous chapter. 7
proposals were evaluated above threshold, and 2 proposals below
threshold.

Following the evaluation,
the Public Authority Board of the ENIAC JU decided to fund 6 proposals.
No proposal was put on the reserve list. The average success rate is 66.7%

Topic number || Submitted proposals || Evaluation results

Submitted FPPs || Eligible FPPs || % of retained || Above threshold || Selected FPPs for funding || Reserve list

Number || MS (€) || JU (€) || Number || MS (€) || JU (€) ||

1 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 11,284,200 || 5,438,049 || 0 || || || 0

2 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || || || 0 || || || 0

3 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 20,345,101 || 10,822,472 || 3 || 20,345,101 || 10,822,472 || 0

4 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 31,629,301 || 16,260,521 || 0 || || || 0

Total || 6 || 6 || 100 || 4 || || || 3 || 20,345,101 || 10,822,472 || 0

7 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 5,688,749 || 3,785,850 || 1 || 5,688,749 || 3,785,850 || 0

8 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 8,060,989 || 6,200,918 || 2 || 8,060,989 || 6,200,918 || 0

Total || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 13,749,738 || 9,986,768 || 3 || 13,749,738 || 9,986,768 || 0

TOTAL || 9 || 9 || 100 || 7 || 45,379,039 || 26,247,289 || 6 || 34,094,839 || 20,809,240 || 0

The geographical
distribution of the participants in the proposals selected for funding is
illustrated below: the Netherlands keep the lead followed by Italy and France.

1.5.
Call 5 ENIAC-2011-2

The ENIAC JU launched its
fifth call for proposals in 2011. The negotiations were conducted towards the
end of 2011 for the fifth call and the final results of the national grant
agreements will be presented in the next year's report.

1.5.1.
Summary information

Call Identifier || ENIAC-2011-2

Publication date || 27 June 2011

Deadline for submission of Full Project Proposals (FPP) || 15 September 2011

Evaluation of Full Project Proposals || October 2011

Closing of negotiations for the selected proposals || November 2011

Funding approval || From December 2011

Indicative Total budget (in €) || €  95.5 millions

EU contribution after evaluation || €  42.2 millions

In-kind contribution after evaluation || €  159.2 millions

Where relevant, the contribution  from the Member States or National funding, or other contributions || € 51.2 millions

Reference to call topics || See the  section "SRA implementation".

The figure below
represents graphically the respective funding by Member State:

1.5.2.
Analysis of proposals submitted

8 proposals were submitted and 7 met the eligibility criteria. The total
Funding requested amounted to €267.7 M (among it: MS contribution of €76.6 M,
JU contribution of €44.7 M). From the SME perspective:  MS contributed by €11.7
M, and the JU by €6.6 M.

The distribution of the participants
in the selected proposals by participant type is illustrated below:

Type participant || Nr of participants in the FPPS || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

Public Bodies || || ||

Research organisations || 26 || 19 || 73.1%

Higher or secondary education || || ||

Private for profit (excl. education) || 34 || 33 || 97.1%

SMEs || 43 || 35 || 81.4%

Others || || ||

Total || 103 || 87 || 84.5%

As for the
geographical distribution of the participants in the FPPs, Germany takes the lead with 20 representatives, followed by the Netherlands (15-20); Austria (10-15). Italy, France and Norway (5-10).

1.5.3.
Evaluation results

Among
the 7 proposals eligible for funding, 6 proposals have passed the thresholds, 1 failed. They have all
been proposed for funding, with a success rate of 85.7%.

|| Submitted proposals || evaluation results

Topic number || Submitted FPPs || Eligible FPPs || % of retained || Above threshold || Selected FPPs  for funding || Reserve list

|| MS (€) || JU (€)

1 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 1 || 3,434,212 || 1,661,668 || 0

3 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 1 || 2,167,129 || 1,424,969 ||

Total || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 2 || 5,601,341 || 3,086,637 || 0

7 || 4 || 3 || 87.5 || 3 || 3 || 34,310,678 || 25,392,711 || 0

8 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 1 || 15,223,428 || 14,357,582 || 0

Total || 5 || 4 || 80.0 || 4 || 4 || 49,534,106 || 39,750,293 || 0

TOTAL || 8 || 7 || 87.5 || 6 || 6 || 55,135,447 || 42,836,930 || 0

The geographical
distribution of the participants in the proposals selected for funding is illustrated below. Germany and Netherlands are leading, Austria follows, then Italy.

1.6.
Grant agreements/project portfolio

This section provides an
overview on signed grant agreements and on their implementation.

1.6.1.
Grant agreements signed (commitment
amounts)

ENIAC – Call 3 (2010) || Number || Total contribution (€) || Total national funding (€) || ENIAC JU contribution (€) || In kind contribution(€)

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || 10 || N/A || N/A || 33,195,414 || N/A

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

TOTAL || 10 || N/A || N/A || 33,195,414 || N/A

ENIAC – Calls 4 – 5 (2011) || Number || Total contribution (€) || Total national funding (€) || ENIAC JU contribution (€) || In kind contribution(€)

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) – Call 4 || 6 || 120,281,832 || 33,020,401 || 20,087,069 || 67,174,362

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) – Call 5 || 6 || 253,368,229 || 54,003,610 || 42,178,897 || 157,185,722

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

TOTAL || 12 || 373,650,061 || 87,024,011 || 62,265,966 || 224,360,084

10 grant agreements
relating to the call 3, launched in 2010, have been signed during 2011. ENIAC
JU contribution was amounting to a total € 33.2 million. The complete overview
is detailed in Annex 19.

In 2011, 12 additional
grants have been signed: 6 grants for call 4 and 6 other for call 5. ENIAC JU
contribution was amounting to a total € 62.3 million The complete overview is
detailed in annex 20.

1.6.2.
Grant agreements for which activities
have ended and/or final results are available

No grant agreement had
activities which ended yet. The projects which started in 2008 will terminate
in 2012. Projects from the subsequent calls launched of 2009 and 2010 are still
running. The projects granted in 2011 will be starting in 2012.

Table
of abbreviations

AA || Application Area

ABAC || Accrual Based Accounting System

ACARE || Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe

AENEAS || Association for European Nanoelectronics Activities

ARTEMIS-IA || ARTEMIS Industrial Association

ASP || ARTEMIS Sub-Programme

CATRENE || Cluster for Application and Technology Research in Europe on Nanoelectronics

CHP || Combined Heat & Power

CMOS || Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor

CS || Clean Sky

DG RTD || Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

EC || European Commission

ED || Eco-Design

EFPIA || European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association

EFTA || European Free Trade Association

EoI || Expression of Interest

ESR || Evaluation Summary Report

ETP || European Technology Platform

EU || European Union

FCH || Fuel Cells and Hydrogen

FP7 || Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)

FPP || Full Project Proposal

GA || Grant Agreement

GAM || Grant Agreement for Members

GAP GB || Grant Agreement for Partners Governing Board

GRA || Green Regional Aircraft

GRC IAC || Green Rotorcraft Internal Audit Capability

IAS || Internal Audit Service

ICAS || International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences

ICT || Information and Communications Technologies

IMI || Innovative Medicines Initiative

IRC || Industry and Research Committee

IT || Information Technologies

ITD || Integrated Technology Demonstrator

JTI || Joint Technology Initiative

JU MAIP MS || Joint Undertaking Multi Annual Implementation Plan Member States

NEW-IG || New Energy World Industry Grouping

NGA || National Grant Agreement

NGO || Non-Governmental Organisation

NSRG || National States Representatives Group

OJ || Official Journal of the European Union

PAB || Public Authorities Board

PO || Project Outline

PPP || Public-private partnership

PRO || Public Research Organisations

R&D || Research & Development

RTD || Research, Technological Development and Demonstration

S&T || Scientific & Technological Excellence

SAGE || Sustainable and Green Engines

SET-Plan || European Strategic Energy Technology Plan

SFWA || Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft

SGO || Systems for Green Operations

SME SRA SRG || Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Strategic Research Agenda State Representative Group

STAB || Scientific and Technological Advisory Board

TE TRL || Technology Evaluator Technology Readiness Levels

||

||

2.
Annexes

2.1.
Clean Sky JU

2.1.1.
Annex 1: Description of the 'Integrated
Technology Demonstrators' (ITD) activities

2.1.1.1.
SFWA – Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft ITD

In 2011 SFWA focussed on achieving progress on key SFWA
target technologies. All activities conducted were aligned along the eight
"SFWA Aircraft Concepts":

1. High Speed
Demonstrator Passive (HSDP)

2. Low Speed
Demonstrator (LSD)

3. Short Range Aircraft Concept (SRA)

4. Low Sweep
Bizjet Concept (LSBJ)

5. High Speed
Demonstrator Active (HSDA)

6. Long Range Aircraft Concept (LRA)

7. High Sweep
Bizjet Concept (HSBJ)

8. CROR Engine Demo FTB

The currently estimated consumption of resources
(including large subcontracting invoices) has been in the order of 82%. (This
figure could prove pessimistic and will be revised for the final Annual
Activity Report.) There are mainly two main reasons, why the budget was not
fully used by the members:

a)
Detailed preparation work of laminar wing took
longer than expected; this caused a delay of real starting of the manufacturing
of parts, which usually is the most costly part. The shift is presently not yet
affecting the overall schedule.

b)
A large amount of subcontracting have not yet
been considered in 2011 because of financial deadlines (within AB mainly). The
invoices arrived too late; nevertheless the work was performed.

The majority of activities were dedicated to develop and
design the final shape of the laminar "smart" wing aero-shape, to define the manufacturing criteria for surface
quality with respect to roughness, waviness, steps and gaps and a large number
of critical details. The related data has been transferred to the design of the
smart wing flight tests articles for the Airbus A340-200 test bed. In alignment
with the requirements and limitations to modify the datum test aircraft, all
supplementary parts were predesigned and the "Preliminary
Design Review" has been conclusively passed in all
elements in April 2011. In the second half of 2011, the detailed design for
many components like the principle laminar wing flight test articles, the "plastron", aerodynamic fairing, wing
diffusion zone, and the wing tip device progressed mostly as planned, part of
the design work could be completed. The principle design of the camera pod to
be mounted on the aircraft fuselage is completed. A number of supplementary
tests in wind tunnels to receive additional performance data were conducted.
The preparation of the major ground test "feature" structural demonstrator was kicked off and is well in progress.

A second main field of activities regards the
Counter-Rotating Open Rotor (CROR), for which important decisions,
strengthening the target of the flight demonstration, were made with the SAGE
ITD and the Executive Director: this refined strategy is summarized in the SAGE
paragraph below.

In 2011, the activities regarded in particular the
conduct of a comprehensive study of the potential benefits and issues related
to integrating a CROR propulsion system into a future large short and medium
transport aircraft covering a large variety of principle configurations.

Major progress has been made in the blade design with
respect to the robustness against impacts of debris: principle concepts of
shielding for critical parts of the structure and systems are being developed
and will be tested in 2012. Tools to adequately calculate the complex flow
pattern are being developed. A major set of scaled test engines and test rigs
have been designed and prepared for testing to exploit the aerodynamic
performance, handling quality and noise in major wind tunnel test campaigns
which started in 2011, to be continued in 2012.

Design activities for a new low sweep and high sweep
business-jet design progressed well, the principle design for an innovative
engine noise shielding tail for a low sweep business jet is completed. Related
wind tunnel tests are under preparation to be conducted in 2012. Planning is
underway for a large scale innovative rear end structural demonstrator.

In the area of low speed wing technologies, the
technology plans have been reviewed, which led to a refocusing on a smart flap
ground demonstrator with current preference to be adapted to a full scale
Dassault Falcon F7X. Active load control high lift technologies shall be
further pursued in ground tests, a major test has been conducted in November
2011 in the DNW-NWB. Besides, the development of innovative loads control
functions for future wings led to another new focus towards a potential "low speed vibration control" application, which
is considered to be proposed for a further dedicated flight test.

The contribution of SFWA vehicle ITD to the Technology
Evaluator, by delivering reference aircraft models and concept aircraft models
incorporating the innovative technologies developed in CleanSky, for the TE
first assessment, was another subject of activities.

74 Topics for publication in Call for proposal have been defined by SFWA through the first 10 dedicated
CleanSky calls. At the end of 2011, almost 50 of them have operationally
started or are about to be launched. Thus a lot of new partners joined
SFWA-ITD, many of them becoming members of the SFWA consortium. A wide range of
subjects was related to the manufacturing, treatment, and repair and testing of
surfaces for laminar wing panels, the design and development of innovative
sensors and actuators for control surfaces in laminar wings.

The 3 calls in 2011 also included major work packages to
attribute to the design and build parts of the laminar wing flight test
articles. Cross-cutting coordination has been established, in particular with
the SAGE –ITD and to some extent, where appropriate, with the SGO-ITD and the
Eco Design-ITD.

Major achievements of the year 2011:

-
The completion of the aerodynamic definition of
the laminar wing design. Several specific design items and technical details
have been checked in order to ensure a flight worthy layout of the wing. Two
structural laminar wing concepts have been frozen and passed the preliminary
design review to be designed, and then manufactured to be tested on the Airbus
A340-300 test aircraft.

-
The Launch Gate design and manufacturing of the
High Speed Demonstrator Passive flight test articles were conclusively passed
in April 2011.

-
Major structural parts of the laminar wing
feature ground demonstrators entered the phase of detailed design, some already
being in the phase of manufacturing.

-
A flight test campaign with a number of surface
coating samples that are candidates to be applied on "smart
wings", was started with a CfP-partner.

-
The feasibility phase for the CROR-engine
integration and CROR demo-FTB including numerical simulation, and subscale
ground testing, has progressed. The "pusher" configuration has been confirmed.

-
Aircraft models for business-jets, small and
medium range and long range transport aircraft have been prepared for the
CleanSky Technology Evaluator to contribute to the first "CleanSky Technology Assessment".
Parts of these were delivered at the end of 2011; aircraft models with fully
implemented CROR engines and a laminar wing will follow in 2012.

-
The second SFWA-ITD Annual Progress Review was
performed, explaining the new approach by Technology Streams. The ITD has
launched the actions deemed necessary to further improve the activities,
following the Reviewers' recommendations.

-
A detailed follow-on year 2012 work and budget
plan, as well as a Consortium Plan 2012, has been issued.

As part of the CleanSky mid-year update it was decided
to put a "SFWA corrective action package"
in place in order to optimise the budget execution. As part of this package,
additional activities to investigate structural solutions for a rear end
fuselage explicitly tailored to carry CROR engines have been conducted in 2011.

2.1.1.2.
Green Regional Aircraft ITD

The GRA work plan was executed at a level of 90%,
according to the current estimate. It was focused on the following activities:

-
Requirements for the definition of the generic
future regional aircraft and for ground and flight Demonstration; structural
definition of peculiar items of advanced aircraft configurations; test report
for all developed technologies for multilayer materials has been completed.

-
Analysis of methodologies for probabilistic
structural real design: this is still on-going and will be completed in the
first half of 2012; final evaluation of the analysis and tests results of
developed nanomaterial. Selection of flat large panels with different
technologies: first down selection test article design has been performed,
manufacturing commenced.

-
Definition of technical solutions on empennage,
wing, fuselage/cockpit of the future generic regional aircraft utilising the
selected technologies.

-
Definition of structure components to be tested
in flight has been completed; engineering and manufacturing data to prepare the
test article for flight test is started; the activities for providing lay out
and installation of advanced components to be tested in flight and
manufacturing; plan of advanced components and the definition of a preliminary
flight test plan have also started. Design & Manufacturing preparation of
test rig and test article is started.

-
First down-selection of High-Lift Devices
Technologies, tailored to Natural Laminar Flow (NLF) wing (130-seat
rear-mounted engine Green Regional A/C) and Turbo Prop (90-seat) Regional A/C
wing configurations, by taking into account high-lift performance, noise
impact, actuation/ kinematics concepts. Both conventional architectures and
innovative concepts, as well as active flow control and low-noise passive
solutions have been assessed on a multi-disciplinary basis.

-
Further development and assessment of Load
Control & Alleviation (LC&A) Technologies, considering both
conventional and innovative wing control movables, to reduce induced drag,
through optimal wing load distribution (LC function), and wing structural loads
(wing bending and torsion movement) from gust and manoeuvre (LA function).

-
First part of aerodynamic and aero-acoustic
Wind-Tunnel Tests campaign on Wing / High-Lift Devices 2D models in INCAS
subsonic facility. Such testing activity is aimed at validating high-lift
performance and low-noise solutions of HLD for NLF wing (130 seat A/C) and
Turbo-Prop (90 seat A/C) configurations.

-
Manufacturing of full-size test articles of NLF
wing flap morphing structures is in progress. Relevant mechanical tests are
going to validate the two actuation concepts addressed, respectively Deeply
Embedded Smart Actuators and Smart Actuated Compliant Mechanisms.

-
Definition of general requirements for the
Wind-Tunnel Experimental Validation of NLF wing and LC&A integrated
technologies through an innovative wing flexible scaled model, representative
of the full-size wing structural deformation under aerodynamic loads. Such
tests are aimed at validating wing aerodynamic design and steady aero-elastic
performances of LC&A devices at transonic speed and high Reynolds number,
close to in-flight conditions. This activity is planned to be performed through
a project under CfP to be launched in 2012.

-
Aerodynamic Design of a Transonic Natural
Laminar Flow Wing, sized to a Green Regional rear-mounted engine 130-seat
Aircraft, relying on experience and achievements of a NLF wing concept
addressed in the technologies maturation phase. Trade-off studies are on-going
to optimise wing plan form (aspect ratio, sweep, ..) and wing profiles at
specified design points (Mach, CL), looking for the best compromise between
aerodynamic efficiency in cruise condition and low-speed performance, and to
also account for impact on structural weight.

-
All-electric aircraft (AEA) requirements &
architectures: i) Final Updating of Integration requirements and Architecture
of the On-Board Systems for Future Green Regional Aircraft and for ground and
flight Demonstration; ii) final V&V plan for energy management
demonstration into GRA; iii) AEA technologies for Systems (Methods &
Tools): iv) implementation of the Level 1 (Architectural) and Level 2
(Functional) GRA AEA systems simulation and cabin thermal models and of the
Shared Simulation Environment (SSE).

-
Detailed Definition of the Systems modifications
to be introduced on Demo a/c and preparation of Modification technical
dossiers. Definition of the Preliminary Energy Management logics for the
on-ground and in flight demonstration.

-
Updating of MTM functionalities and scenario
analysis document in case of relevant input coming from SESAR; finalization of
avionics architecture and basic prototyping tool architecture definition.

-
TLAR Requirements last definition phase and
power plant specifications (Loop 2); Validation and verification strategy and
plan finalization: planning of activities oriented to verify the feasibility;
Preliminary GTF sizing under wing installation configuration definition; Green
Power plant architecture, technology and modelling, performance and emission
data started (2nd loop);.

-
Power plant / Airframe integration: analysis has
been performed in order to evaluate adopted architectures integrated solutions
for Open Rotor (1st loop).

-
Relevant data (trajectories, mission results,
etc.), noise and engine emissions evaluation for the Technology Evaluator for
Green A/C (main results of Loop 1 activities by means of proper tools).

2.1.1.3.
GRC – Green Rotorcraft

The overall effort spent compared to the budget forecast
is worth 77%, and main results achieved in 2011 for the seven domains are
detailed below, as well as the areas where the activity has been behind plan.

GRC work performed in 2011 has been focused on
preparatory activities such as technology selection and evaluation,
requirements definition, work environment preparation (e.g. simulation models
and tools development) and selection of new partners, through calls for
proposals, to perform specific research tasks.

In 2011, 3 calls for proposals were launched and 8
topics were successful. In the meantime, 15 projects were kicked off. By end
2011, 30 projects were running or under negotiation.

1.
In GRC1 (Innovative rotor blade)

Activities are organised
around 5 main technology streams: active twist blades, Model rotor
optimisation, Active Gurney Flap (AGF) systems for rotor blades, full-scale
passive blade activities and laminar flow aerofoils.

The development of the active twist concept from project
FRIENDCOPTER continued with the characterisation, evaluation and production of
the piezocomposite materials. A set of piezocomposite arrays designed for
integration into a full scale rotor blade segment was produced. Model rotor
work has been affected by transfer of effort to full-scale passive blade
activities.

In the meantime, work on Active Gurney Flap (AGF)
systems for rotor blades has progressed well. In parallel, the task related to
the benefit assessment in forward flight conditions has been started with the
selection of the partner responsible for designing and developing the rotor
model scale. The development of the open loop control algorithm, to control the
AGF system, was achieved. After analysis, it was decided not to proceed to
testing laminar flow aerofoils, because of the small benefits expected in hover
and forward flight conditions.

2.
In GRC2 (Reduced drag of airframe and dynamic
systems activities)

Main tasks focused on the optimisation of the rotor hub,
the fuselage and the engine installation. The drag breakdown over the different
parts of the helicopter (hub, fuselage) was characterised and provided the
results necessary to identify main areas of improvements.

Various numerical analyses performed to optimise the hub
cap of various classes of helicopters have been validated (or still in
progress) by Wind tunnel tests activities to confirm the design. Devices such
as a remotely controlled horizontal stabiliser for the helicopter common
platform were designed, while manufacturing is in progress, and steady blowing,
pulsed and synthetic jets on a helicopter blunt fuselage were further
numerically investigated and tested in Wind tunnel. TRL3 gate was passed for
the latter device. The optimisation loop implemented on the specific nacelle
component of ERICA, inlet and exhaust optimisation was completed within the
frame of the TILTop project.

3.
In GRC3 (Integration of innovative electrical
systems activities)

The reference helicopter description was finalised,
including the potential use of technologies per helicopter type, required to perform
the overall benefit assessment.

The preliminary architecture analysis was deferred due
to the lack of models available for some equipment. In the meantime, the
Electrical Generation System architecture was postponed pending upon the
finalisation of the negotiation with the partner appointed to support this
activity. Results should be available in 2012. This didn’t prevent the
continuation of the design requirements and to start the developments of
subsystems.

Requirements with SGO were clarified for the "28V brushless starter generator";
PDR was completed early 2012 and TRL3 gate passed for the Electromechanical
Actuators; the Electrical Rotor Brake was kicked off early November; the EMA
for landing gear started early November; the Management of the Thermal Energy
Recovery began in July and the Thermal Energy Recovery from Engine Exhaust
passed the PDR and TRL3 gate in November. Activities related to Power Supply
for Piezo Actuators and Electric Tail Rotor progressed well according to the
work plan.

4.
In GRC4 (Installation of a Diesel engine on a
light helicopter)

The "study of the future light helicopter
generation powered with an advanced Diesel engine"
started in November, with the University of Lublin. 1st results will be
delivered in May 2012.

In parallel, another consortium was selected for the
design and the development of the Diesel Power Pack to power an EC120 flight
demonstrator. This activity started with delays as compared to the initial work
plan due to the complexity of the project and some issues faced during the
negotiation process with the partners. Available resources were not sufficient
to catch up with the work plan and the PDR initially scheduled in September
2011 was postponed to February 2012.

5.
In GRC5 (Environment-friendly flight paths
activities)

Requirements of Simultaneous Non-Interfering Approach
Operations have been released and works on procedures in the GARDEN project
were performed to analyse how to implement SNI approach based on GNSS (PINs
LPV) and their respective constraints. The characterisation of the pollutant
emissions continued with the set-up of computational and measurement chains.

Activities were slowed down due to the delay in
providing engine data to the selected partners. In the meantime, the
measurement of different pollutant in flight on AW139 was postponed to 2012 due
the unavailability of the test bed helicopter. The noise data acquired last
year on EC155 were processed and results used to complete the noise models
necessary to design and calibrate the optimised procedures (take-off, approach
and landing). These results were uploaded in a behavioural model delivered to
GRC7, to further improve the HELENA tool.

In parallel, enabling technologies such as the acoustic
radar were further developed. In total, the GRC5 progress has been
significantly behind the agenda, and recovery actions are needed in 2012.

6.
In GRC6 (Eco-Design Rotorcraft Demonstrators)

The activity was kicked off in 2011. The effort was
focused on writing up the requirements for the 4 different demonstrators and in
selecting the main partners contributing to the design and manufacturing of the
"door & floor" demonstrator and the structural
parts. Unfortunately, no partners could be found to study the dismantling and
recycling of the "door & floor" demonstrator and structural parts. This delayed the activity for 6
months. The number of case studies in the design of the structural parts was
not underestimated and materials needed to start the study phase were not
available. This lead to an additional delay of 6 months.

7.
In GRC7 (Technology Evaluator for Rotorcraft
activities)

The initial target set up for 2011 was to deliver the 6
behavioural models, fully representative of the various type of helicopters.
The effort needed happened to be bigger than expected. In agreement with the
TE, the decision was made to stagger models delivery and to concentrate the
effort in 2011 on one behavioural model: the Light Twin-engine model.

In addition, the coordination set up to get the right
assessment of environmental benefits expected by the different technologies
worked well. Finally this first model, encompassing the different technology
characteristics was delivered during the last quarter of the year to the TE.

2.1.1.4.
 SAGE
– Sustainable and Green Engine ITD

The activities for the 5 demonstrators of SAGE were
further developed, with resources consumption close to 100% according to the
end-of-year estimate, after the mid-year budget adjustment at the level of the
JU.

Open
Rotor strategy

Two Projects in SAGE address the Open Rotor in parallel.
Both have been included in the analysis and optimisation of the roadmap up to
the flight demonstration, in coordination with SFWA. The SAGE 2 leader, Snecma
(Safran Group), has confirmed its commitment to test a full CROR demonstrator
on the ground in 2015. Safran has agreed to expand its commitment in the Clean
Sky time frame to deliver an engine in 2016 for the flight demonstration in a "pusher" configuration, provided the funding
necessary to support this additional activity is identified.

By executing this demonstration plan, Clean Sky will
deliver a substantial and visible engine and aircraft test programme to address
the ACARE CO2 emission targets, in conjunction with the related noise targets
and extending the technical programme beyond the original plan.

In parallel, it has been agreed that more effort is
necessary to better address the NOx emissions reduction and to strongly
contribute to the ambitious ACARE targets in this area. A new engine-level
demonstrator has been committed by Rolls-Royce: the "Lean
Burn" demonstrator (a modified Trent 1000 engine) will be tested in
2015/2016 to achieve Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6. This will give birth
to one more project: SAGE 6 (to be started not earlier than in 2012)[4].

In addition to both the Safran commitment regarding the
CROR and the Rolls-Royce demonstrator on Lean burn technology, Rolls-Royce will
continue the SAGE 1 Open Rotor programme over a slightly longer period of time.
Strongly committed to the maturation of this promising concept through a full
ground and flight demonstration, Rolls-Royce is now targeting 2017-2018,
provided that suitable complementary funding source is available. Within the
Clean Sky timescale (2016) and funding, Rolls-Royce / SAGE 1 will continue to
mature the main enabling technologies and components, to prepare for full
demonstration.

Having still two CROR designs running, with now slightly
different timescales, will allow adherence to the risk mitigation policy which
has been followed from the very beginning of Clean Sky, with a reduced total
cost, the difference being allocated to the new NOx-focused "Lean Burn" demonstrator.

The technical activities are described more in detail
below.

1.
SAGE1 (Geared Counter Rotating Open Rotor
1)

The project has progressed on development of key
technologies required for technology demonstration, such as CROR aero and noise
methods and prediction tool sets. High Speed CROR "next
generation blade" tests have been carried out under
SAGE1 (Rig145), to establish a validated basis for later confirmation of
technology feasibility, able to achieve defined CO2 and Noise reduction goals.
Activities on design, development and manufacturing of complex lightweight
rotating structures have been completed in 2011, mainly related to
manufacturing processes. Enabling technology definition such as a new booster
required for the demonstrator engine has further progressed.

In addition, work was performed in the fields of A/C
safety and certification feasibility, aerodynamics, acoustics and physical
design, to establish understanding of technology implications on potential
future product design and feasibility. This work addressed selection of pusher
vs. puller configuration, with a decision of a pusher in September 2011.

Co-operation with SFWA regarding the feasibility and
integration of the demonstrator with a flying test bed has continued mainly
inside the SFWA project. Besides, under SAGE1, the feasibility and first top
level concept of new technology demonstrator engine control and its integration
with an existing flight test aircraft has been evaluated.

In collaboration with Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) SAGE
1 has defined the Regional aircraft open rotor engine requirements.

The environmental targets have been revised and
transmitted to TE. Concerning the "Lean Burn" project addressed above in the Strategy paragraph, some activity
started in 2011 under SAGE 1, before being able to agree on the full scope and
to implement the SAGE 6 project.

2.
SAGE 2 (Geared Counter-Rotating Open
Rotor 2)

After a comprehensive study of the merits of both geared
and direct drive open rotor, SNECMA selected the geared configuration for the
demonstration in Clean Sky and redefined accordingly the demonstration
programme with a ground test planned for the second half of 2015. A chief
engineer role was created and an integrated team including the SAGE2 partners
is in charge of developing the technologies necessary for the geared open rotor
first demonstration.

Key technologies for the geared open rotor are:

-
High speed propeller blades

-
Pitch Control Mechanism (PCM)

-
Gear box (reliability, oil and cooling system
(risk of coaking of oil after engine stop), carcass distortion)

-
Contra-rotating propeller module technology for
noise and safety

-
Pylon technology such as blowing for noise
efficiency

A Preliminary Concept Review (PCoR) took place in
December 2011 to review all critical technologies and propose trade-offs:

-
Whole Power Plant Design, with several
possibilities to integrate the gas generator and the open rotor

-
Propellers blades design and manufacture

-
Pitch Change Mechanisms systems, supported by
several projects from CfP

-
Reduction Gear Box developed by AVIO and
supported by a CfP project. Several interfaces discussed, some trade off still
to be performed

-
Nacelle proposed by Alenia-Aermacchi and
Aircelle.

-
Power Turbine configuration developed by AVIO
and its integration in the demonstrator discussed with Snecma

-
Rotating Frames developed by Volvo

-
Rotating aero ducts with in particular the
design of contra rotating joints. A CfP will support this study.

There is a strong involvement of all SAGE2 Affiliates
and the new partners through the CfPs.

3.
SAGE 3 (Large Turbofan engine)

Design of the annulus fillers for a composite fan system
has progressed, based on the work started in 2010.

A Partner for the structural surface cooler and intake
liner has been selected through the Call for Proposal and the designs and
manufacturing plans progressed through 2011, this work including impact analysis
to achieve an integrated design and material selection that was optimised in
conjunction with the manufacturing system.

The technologies to be integrated into the engine
demonstrator require a detailed analysis and modelling work to fully understand
the potential impact of inserting these technologies into an architecture not
originally designed for the new hardware. This work has been conducted during
2011.

In parallel with progressing with the development of
specific design and manufacturing technologies, the SAGE3 project has always
been discussed together with the demonstrator vehicle, test programme and
facilities. Reviews for first build of the engine demonstrator were conducted
and preliminary design reviews have been hold for technologies, including the
low pressure turbine, to be demonstrated on later builds.

Rig testing of the intercase features has started.

4.
SAGE 4 (Geared Turbofan engine)

On full Geared Turbofan demonstrator level, the initial
concept design was further detailed and planned on a level 1 & 2 during the
concept definition phase. The General Arrangement of the Geared Fan
Demonstrator and the preliminary Design specification were drafted.

This work was accompanied on a module level for the High
Pressure Compressor, the High Speed LPT, the Fan Drive Gear System and the
Turbine Exhaust Case. Further detail design for other engine modules was also
executed.

Technology content was verified and integration studies
were performed. A significant effort has been made to advance material and
weight saving technology to a ready-to-test status in terms of blade design and
stability of the forging and manufacturing process. Additionally, further
effort has been made on the advanced casing design, featuring a new fixture
design between the vane clusters and the casing shell, an optional material
change and an altered cooling air system. A preliminary instrumentation plan
for validation is available. Test stand preparation and adaptation work as part
of WP 4.3 ensured to support demonstrator testing later in the program.
Additionally, an associated risk assessment was conducted for the SAGE4
demonstrator engine. All these aspects were considered to be in line with the
requirements of the demonstrator program and passed the preliminary design
review on May 2011.

Afterwards, the concept optimization phase was
initiated. During this phase, integration studies have been further detailed,
at the same time as advanced instrumentation plans were been drafted.

Due to the accelerated market introduction of future GTF
engine applications, the work progress during the Concept Optimization Phase
for the SAGE4 demonstrator in 2011 was slower than expected. A SAGE4 program
update was necessary, to postpone the Critical Design Review which is now scheduled
for May 2012 and start of the demo testing is now scheduled for October 2014.

Negotiations of the Topics published in 2010 via Calls
for Proposals were continued. Four topics contracted with a total value of €2.8
M initiated their work during 2011 to support SAGE4 activities. During 2011,
additional Topics with a total value of €6.2 M (including two topics from Volvo
Aero) were published and partners were successful selected. Negotiations were
initiated and some of these Partners already started working on these projects
by the end of 2011.

The project leader has compiled and delivered to GRA a
preliminary engine functional model of SAGE4 GTF propulsion system for
GRA-130PAX regional application in order to support the 2011 TE assessment.

5.
SAGE 5 (advanced turboshaft
configuration)

The project leader conducted in June 2011 the Critical
Design Review covering Core Study and the Whole engine study. It marked the end
of the detailed design phase, and evidenced that the project is well on
schedule.

All parts manufacturing have started and all the
suppliers have been chosen for the demonstrator engine. Partial rig
manufacturing has been completed for combustion chamber, compressor and LP
turbine components.

Compressor and combustion chamber partial rig test has
started late December and will continue in 2012. The various projects launched
through the Call for Proposals are delivering promising results to be
incorporated onto the demonstrator; where applicable the activities are
redefined according to the actual availability and capabilities of the selected
partners.

2.1.1.5.
SGO - Systems for Green Operations

The SGO estimated consumption of resources in 2011 is
80%, i.e. a delay (and expected carry-over) of two months with respect to the
2011 schedule. Good progress has been made in 2011 in maturing the many
technologies developed in SGO, both in the Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE)
domain, and in the Management of Trajectory and Mission (MTM) domain. Most of
the technologies and functions have now passed TRL3 at least. Nevertheless, due
to individual difficulties in each technology stream, all initial expectations
on milestones and deliverables were not fully realised. This is partly due to
global issues (Ice Wind Tunnel testing facilities, partial withdrawal of some
beneficiaries, updated high-level planning …) and partly to specific situations
(R&T resources, availability of experts, etc.).

-
In 2011, WP1 ("aircraft
solutions") monitored the development and updated the architecture assessment
thanks to the refined knowledge of the technologies developed in WP2 ("management of aircraft energy")
and WP3 ("management of trajectory and mission").
A report on electrical and thermal architectures of the SGO large aircraft has
been issued. The final technical priorities for MAE systems of regional
aircraft have been defined. In WP2, work on technologies for energy management
moved towards delivery of first components for demonstration. Throughout 2011,
some equipment and systems specified during 2009 and 2010 went through in-house
testing in order to ensure that they are ready for large-scale demonstrator
testing in next years. The progress of these technologies is tracked by the TRL
process installed in SGO.

-
For electrical and thermal systems, large-scale
demonstrations are planned to be assembled during 2012 and 2013, and WP2 has
started to develop much of the equipment for these platforms. The preparation
of the Wing Ice Protection Systems (WIPS) technology demonstrators have begun
and after the selection of the Ice Wind tunnel test facility the test campaign
has been scheduled for the 3rd quarter of 2012. Modified starter generator
hardware has been delivered to the electrical test rig PROVEN to support WP4
demonstration campaign and architecture studies. The work on electrical ECS is
heading towards TRL4 support by performance tests in altitude chamber which has
been started mid-2011. In 2011 the work on electrical engine nacelle system was
driven by preparation of the nacelle anti-ice and actuation technologies and adaptation
of the COPPER Bird test. First test of nacelle actuation has been carried out
end of 2011.

Parallel to the construction of equipment, the
simulation use cases, which began to be examined in 2010, went through a
refinement process, particularly in order to improve the fidelity and accuracy
of the models being used. In 2011 good progress has been made on implementation
of the use-cases as well as on development of the common interface library and
common modelling standards.

A first assessment of ‘The Electrical SGO Large
Aircraft’ was performed: compared to previous projects e.g. MOET, the overall
system weights have been significantly reduced but the block fuel assessed on
aircraft level remains almost neutral resulting in unchanged CO2 emissions. Several
improvements on system level and integration have been recommended and will be
studied in detail with the partners in the following months. Of course, this
does not affect other significant environmental benefits of such electrical
systems, in particular w.r.t. the chemical pollutants.

In 2011, activities concerning the Management of the
Trajectory and Mission (MTM) resulted in a number of TRL3 gates passed,
including the cruise Flight Management function (Multi Step in Cruise), Time
and Energy Managed Operations (TEMO) for guidance in continuous descent phase,
Advanced Weather Radar algorithms, On-board optimisation of trajectory and
Smart Operation on Ground system (electrical motor integrated in the main
landing gear). Partial mock-ups of these technologies and functions have been
tested in order to support the feasibility and performance assessments at TRL3,
and refine specifications for the development of demonstrators starting in
2012.

Significant progress has also been made in the
specification and implementation of the FMS function Adaptive Increased Glide
Slope covering the final approach phase. Pilot-in-the loop tests are planned
for first quarter 2012, supporting a TRL3 by mid-2012.

A COTS product has been selected for integration of the
Water Vapour sensor and Atmospheric Data Transmission system, with the target
of flight-testing the concept in 2013. Nevertheless, difficulties in validating
the business application led to a delay on the TRL3, now foreseen during first
quarter 2012, with a risk to stop the development at this stage.

-
Enhanced environmental models developed in WP3.1
have supported these milestones. An advanced version of the theoretical
optimisation framework (GATAC) has been delivered, allowing for complete 2D
optimisation of missions on selected test cases. This also allowed to refine
the specification for future versions to be developed in 2012, 2013.

With regards to the link between Clean Sky and SESAR,
progress has been made in the coordination between both programs. With results
from the various TRL3 gates, MTM is now ready to present the various concepts
in order to check with SESAR JU their compatibility with future ATM rules and
to receive updates from SESAR to be taken into account at higher TRL. Specific
coordination meeting are planned early 2012.

-
WP4 (Large scale demonstrations) started
preparing the demonstration means (ground physical or virtual test rigs, flight
test aircraft). The demonstration strategic plan was issued in 2011.

Some tests have been conducted on the electrical test
rig to contribute to architecture studies and refinement of electrical
components specification.

The thermal test rig was prepared for further
integration in 2012-2013. The demonstration campaigns related to icing wind
tunnel testing of electrical wing ice protection systems for large aircraft –
has been fully prepared. The selection of the supplier is completed and the
slot themselves secured for 2012.

WP4 has continued the integration of mock-ups of green
functions on large scale flight simulator for the evaluation of green functions
in an operational environment all along the mission profile to consolidate the
benefits from an environmental perspective.

The definition of the flight test plans, installation
and instrumentation was continued on the targeted flight tests aircraft.

-
WP5 (aircraft-level assessment) was kicked off
in November 2011, preparing for the industrial exploitation of the more mature
solutions, especially the ones concerning the Management of Aircraft Energy.

2.1.1.6.
ED – EcoDesign

The Eco-Design ITD used 94% of
the resources planned for 2011, according to the end-of-year estimate.  It
is organised in the two major areas:

-
EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) and

-
EDS [Eco-Design for Systems (small aircraft)].

The Airframe Application of the
Eco-Design ITD is meant to tackle the environmental issues by focusing on the following
challenges:

-
To identify and maturate environmentally sound ("green") materials and processes for /c
production;

-
To identify and maturate environmentally sound ("green") materials and processes for a/c
maintenance and use processes;

-
To improve the field of end-of-life a/c
operations after several decades of operation, this includes reuse,
recyclability and disposal ("elimination")
issues;

-
To provide means for an eco-design process on
order to minimize the overall environmental impact of a/c production,
use/maintenance, and disposal.

These areas are considered for significant parts of the
aircraft: structure, cabin covering and furniture, vehicle systems components /
equipment, engine components, electronics.

In 2011 work in the frame of the Eco-Design ITD –
Airframe Application continued mainly in the following Work Packages:

-
WP A.2 : Technology Development,

-
WP A.3 : Application Studies.

In WP A.2, the work was
focused on the most innovative technologies selected through the trade-off
process performed during the second half of 2010. Ground Demonstrators to be
manufactured, dismantled and recycled in WP A.6 were discussed in the frame of
WP A.2.

In WP A.3, the work
continued on the field on Life Cycle Analysis or LCA. A first version of the
LCA data base – based on current processes - has been made available at T0+36
months i.e. in September 2011.

Among the most significant objectives of 2011,
results from the partners' activities launched in 2010, on the analysis of
existing LCA tools and associated databases, and standards like European
Platform on Life Cycle Assessment (EPLCD) and the European Reference Life Cycle
Data System (ELCD), have been reviewed, as long as further progress about
usability of LCA tools in consideration of special requirements in aircraft
industry.

In addition, activities on "Societal
needs" have been completed, which results also in the closure of the
overall WP A.1. With respect to exchange of data between EDA and TE, documents
related to harmonized milestone planning between EDA and TE, and to the
description of the scale-up methodology for LCA results from parts to entire
a/c have been produced.

In 2011 in the frame of the Eco-Design ITD – Systems,
work continued on the feasibility of an all-electrical aircraft, through the
study of innovative energy management architectures, requiring joining effort
to provide appropriate requirements to Systems ITD. The general objective
of this part of the Eco-Design ITD is to make a significant step towards the
concept of the all-electric vehicle systems aircraft, by removing of
hydraulic fluid (with significant benefits in terms of aircraft maintenance and
disposal environmental impact); by on-board power by wire. The use of
electricity as only media offers a lot of possibility in terms of energy
management (e.g.: Intelligent load shedding, power regeneration on actuators,
sharing of Electrical Control Unit over actuators). For the purpose of the
all-electric small a/c objective, the existing work packages are completed
with activities hosted by the GRA, GRC and SGO ITDs.

The most significant milestones reached in 2011 were:

-
The final definition of the Generic
Architecture, which will serve as the basis for the tests to be conducted on
the Electrical Test Bench;

-
The completion of the definition of the
subsystems requirements and the development follow-up, for the Generic
Architecture and for the Business Jet architectures;

-
The completion of the definition of the
Electrical Bench and Thermal Bench;

-
The first phases of test bench manufacturing;

-
The completion of the definition of the
electrical tests to be conducted on the Electrical Bench;

-
The delivery of the process to use the selected
generic simulation tools: Energy Management Model (EMM), Electrical Network
Analysis Model (ENAM), Thermal Model (TM), Ecolonomic Model (EM) and the
associated process to use them and interconnect them;

-
The approval of the Electrical Test Bench
Preliminary Design Review, conducted at the end of 2011, with participation of
all involved actors.

2.1.1.7.
3.7 TE – Technology Evaluator

All TE Work Packages had activities and deliverables (or
outputs) in 2011:

-
WP0: TE Management and Coordination

-
WP1: TE Requirements and Architecture

-
WP2: Models Development and Validation

-
WP3: Simulation Framework Development + IVV

-
WP4: Assessment of impacts and Trade-off studies

1.
WP1: TE Requirements and Architecture

In WP1, during 2011 the detailed definition of generic
as well as ‘real world’ aircraft (fixed wing and rotary wing) missions were
updated and finalised for the TE’s 1st Assessment due by the end of 2011. The
metrics for this Assessment were also refined, as well as the requirements for
the ‘Airport’ and Air Transport System (ATS) evaluations. (Note that the
‘Airport’ level was previously referred to as ‘Operational’ level but this was
changed during the refining of nomenclature as recommended by the External
Evaluators during the TE 2010 Annual Review in March 2011.)

2.
WP2: Models Development and Validation

In WP2 major obstacles needed to be overcome in the
preparation and delivery of aircraft (conceptual) models by the vehicle ITDs
(namely GRA, GRC and SFWA). Several Milestones as defined by the TE AIP 2011
for the delivery of the aircraft models to the TE were missed, with delays
varying from 2 to 7 months. As a consequence, the scope of this 1st Assessment
was reduced significantly in September. Moreover, it was necessary to delay the
delivery of the 1st Assessment Report to the JU until February 2012.

These scope changes for 2011 included:

-
Exclusion of the SFWA LR (Long Range) aircraft.

-
Limiting the SFWA SMR (Short and Medium Range) /CROR evaluation to some standard missions and assessing fuel burn / CO2
only.

-
Reverting to a simplified modelling for the
noise assessment of SFWA concept and reference aircraft, deviating from the
model specifications set (4D Trajectories).

-
Limiting the evaluation of rotorcraft to one
conceptual vehicle (TEL, Twin Engine Light).

-
Limiting the number of airports used for the
Airport Evaluation for fixed wing aircraft to 2.

-
But conversely, adding up a first evaluation of
the GTF-powered GRA130 for Fuel Burn / CO2 It must be noted that in WP2 the TE
consortium operates as a de-facto supply chain manager: all the major component
conceptual models are delivered by the ‘aircraft ITDs’. In this respect, this
first assessment of 2011 must also be considered as a learning phase – while
its results will still be of utmost interest as such. Taking the lessons learnt
into 2012, the interfaces with SFWA, GRA and GRC have accordingly been
scrutinised and control documents defining the delivery of models
(specification, content and timing) created. A tighter control cycle has been
put in place to monitor the progress (including inputs from other ITDs).
Performance is expected to improve dramatically in 2012.

3.
WP3: Simulation Framework Development +
IVV

In WP3, the Update of TE database structure definition
and the description of the data transfer between TE platforms within the
overall TE-IS were completed. It was agreed to postpone the integration,
verification and validation of the simulation platforms (and the TE IS) to 2012
as too many aircraft conceptual models were undelivered, incomplete or
delivered in preliminary (‘de-scoped’) form.

4.
WP4: Assessment of impacts and Trade-off
studies

WP4, or ‘Assessment of Impacts and Trade-Off Studies’,
contains the key output from the TE to the JU: the 1st Assessment. Leading up
to the actual Assessment, other key activities and deliverables included:

-
Detailed specification report of the
mission-level assessment (‘use cases’)

-
Detailed specification report of the airport
level assessment (‘use cases’)

-
Detailed specification report of the ATS level
assessment (‘use cases’)

-
Detailed specification of the life-cycle
analysis (‘use cases’) and a demonstration of the calculation using reference
aircraft.

Overall, the execution of the 2011 plan has been a
significant challenge for the TE. It must be noted that the late supply of
crucial inputs was the overriding factor in the delivery performance. The
supply chain issues originated in the SFWA, GRC and GRA ITDs (in this order in
terms of contributing delays); noting that these ITDs also had interface
challenges with ‘transverse’ ITDs, notably SAGE.

Despite the difficulties encountered in these first
loops, the TE, with the support from the JU, managed to put in place reinforced
planning and control mechanisms for 2012. The first assessment, whatever its
limitations, plays also a role of “demonstrator” of the full process: this
demonstration is encouraging. The quality and timeliness of deliveries should
improve significantly in 2012. This will still be closely monitored by the JU,
as a top-ranking priority.

2.2.
Call 7 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05

2.2.1.
Annex 2: Topics overview CS JU call 7 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05)

Identification || ITD-Area-Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (€) || Maximum funding (€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky – Eco-Design || 11 || 5,230,000 || 3,922,500

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 – EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || 9 || 3,030,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-010 || Study of cyanate ester based composites in a high service temperature environment || || 400,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-011 || Bicarbonate media blasting for paint-varnish removal and dry surface treatment || || 300,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-012 || Development of more eco-efficient aluminium alloys for aircraft structures || || 500,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-013 || Development and implementation of conductive coating for Magnesium sheets in A/C || || 160,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-014 || Infusion system development for primary structure || || 200,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-015 || Development of advanced preforms for LCM technologies || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-016 || Surface mapping to improve reliability of dry treatment on metallic and organic surfaces || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-017 || Production of yarns and fabrics based on recycled carbon fibres (CFs) || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-018 || Environmental Data Models and Interface development || || 720,000 ||

JTI-CS-ECO-02 || Area-02 – EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) || 2 || 2,200,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-02-006 || Electrical Test Bench Power Center || || 700,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-02-007 || Electrical Test Bench Control System, Instrumentation and Cabling || || 1,500,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft || 2 || 620,000 || 465,000

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 – Low weight configurations || 1 || 170,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRA-01-034 || Design, manufacturing and impact test on selected panels with advanced composite material || || 170,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-02 || Area-02 – Low noise configurations || 1 || 450,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRA-02-014 || Wing loads control/alleviation system design for advanced regional Turbo-Fan A/C configuration || || 450,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 7 || 11,580,000 || 8,685,000

JTI-CS-GRC-03 || Area-03 – Integration of innovative electrical systems || 2 || 930,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-03-004 || Innovative management of energy recovery for reduction of electrical power consumption on fuel consumption || || 500,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-03-005 || Adaptation kit design & manufacturing: APU Driving System || || 430,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-04 || Area-04 – Installation of diesel engines on light helicopters || 2 || 9,950,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-04-003 || Optimised Diesel engine design matching a new light helicopter architecture || || 650,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-04-004 || Diesel Power-pack Integration on a light helicopter demonstrator || || 9,300,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-05 || Area-05 – Environmentally friendly flight paths || 1 || 300,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-05-004 || Tuning of simplified rotorcraft noise models, preliminary acoustic measurement test campaign || || 300,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-06 || Area-06 – Eco-Design for Rotorcraft || 2 || 400,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-06-001 || Manufacturing of a Thermoplastic Composite Feasibility Article for a Helicopter Door || || 200,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-06-002 || Manufacturing of thermoplastic structural demonstrators || || 200,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines || 4 || 5,400,000 || 4,050,000

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 – Large 3-shaft turbofan || 2 || 2,600,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SAGE-03-007 || Large 3-shaft Demonstrator – Core Turbomachinery – High Temperature Flexible PCB || || 600,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SAGE-03-008 || Large 3-shaft Demonstrator – Structural Surface Cooler development || || 2,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-04 || Area-04 – Geared Turbofan || 2 || 2,800,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SAGE-04-002 || Development of Innovative SLM-Machinery for High Temperature Aero Engine Applications || || 1,800,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SAGE-04-007 || Development of Selective Laser Melting (SLM) Simulation tool for Aero Engine applications || || 1,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 8 || 3,999,000 || 2,999,250

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area-01 – Smart Wing Technology || 6 || 1,842,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-007 || In field surface inspection tool for contamination detection before bonded composite repair || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-014 || Final design and manufacturing of a test set up for the investigation of gust load alleviation || || 400,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-030 || Quantification of the degradation of microstructured coatings || || 200,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-031 || Assessment of the interaction of a passive and an active load alleviation scheme for a transport aircraft || || 200,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-032 || Technology evaluation and manufacturing of microtechnology-based Active Flow Control actuators || || 300,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-033 || Numerical Simulation of the Assembly Tolerances for NLF Wings || || 492,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-03 || Area-03 – Flight Demonstrators || 2 || 2,157,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-03-004 || A340 Outer Wing Metrology || || 1,457,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-03-005 || Surface quality measurement in flight || || 700,000 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations || 6 || 3,700,000 || 2,775,000

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 – Management of Aircraft Energy || 2 || 550,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-02-027 || Simulation and Analysis Tool Development Part I || || 400,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-02-031 || Qualification of insulation materials to engine oils || || 150,000 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 – Management of Trajectory and Mission || 3 || 1,150,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-03-011 || Recruitment of qualified flight crew (test, airline) and expenses for tests || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-03-012 || SOG Wheel Actuator development for existing aircraft || || 650,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-03-013 || Economic analysis according to business jets operators profile || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-04 || Area-04 – Aircraft Demonstrators || 1 || 2,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-04-001 || Design and manufacture of an aircraft tractor compliant with specifications for Smart Operations on ground || || 2,000,000 ||

TOTAL (M€) || 38 || 30,529,000 || 22,896,750

2.2.2.
Annex 3: Grant agreements signed and
proposals under negotiation (Call 7 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05)

The following table
provides the list of GAP signed or in negotiation for the Clean Sky call 7.

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

1 || 287101 || SPECIMEN || STUDY ON THE PROCESSING AND THE PERFORMANCE OF CYANATE ESTER COMPOSITES TOWARDS THE OPTIMIZATION FOR HARSH SERVICE ENVIRONMENTS. || 285,189 || 95,063 || 380,252

2 || 287071 || BiMed || Bicarbonate media blasting for paint-varnish removal and dry surface treatment || 213,639 || 71,213 || 284,852

3 || 286963 || ECEFA || Eco-efficient aluminium for Aircraft || 236,500 || 236,500 || 473,000

4 || 287074 || CoSPI || Composite Stiffened Panels Infusion || 149,670 || 49,890 || 199,560

5 || 287129 || APRIL || Advanced Preformmanufacturing for industrial LCM-Processes || 187,495 || 62,498 || 249,993

6 || 287099 || PlasmaClean || Surface mapping and control during atmospheric plasma treatments || 142,389 || 47,463 || 189,852

7 || 287098 || SEPDC || Smart electrical power distribution centre || 509,151 || 189,705 || 698,856

8 || 287127 || HighPMAAC || High Performance Modular Architecture of Acquisition and Control command system dedicated to test Electrical systems for Aeronautics || 785,285 || 699,743 || 1,485,028

9 || 287078 || CLAReT || Control and Alleviation of Loads in Advanced Regional Turbo Fan Configurations || 337,783 || 112,596 || 450,379

10 || 287076 || RENERGISE || Innovative management of energy recovery for reduction of electrical power consumption on fuel consumption || 344,736 || 130,306 || 475,042

11 || 284848 || DELILAH || Diesel engine matching the ideal light platform of the helicopter || 462,989 || 154,331 || 617,320

12 || 285842 || HIPE AE 440 || Diesel Powerpack for a Light Helicopter Demonstrator || 5,447,225 || 3,836,228 || 9,283,453

13 || 287094 || ANCORA || ANotec-COmoti Rotorcraft Acoustics initiative for preliminary acoustic flight tests for the tuning of simplified rotorcraft noise models || 213,150 || 71,050 || 284,200

14 || 287103 || DEfcodoor || Development of an Ecological friendly final consolidation step using Thermoplastic Fibre Placement for a helicopter door || 149,553 || 49,854 || 199,407

15 || 286576 || ECO-Fairs || ECO-design and manufacturing of thermoplastic structural fairings for helicopters || 145,787 || 53,763 || 199,550

16 || 286030 || windtunnel || DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF A WIND TUNNEL TEST HARDWARE || 291,225 || 97,075 || 388,300

17 || 287069 || microcoat || Quantification of the degradation of microstructured coatings || 149,496 || 50,332 || 199,828

18 || 287020 || PALAST || Assessment of the interaction of a passive and an active load alleviation scheme || 142,020 || 47,340 || 189,360

19 || 287100 || µSAM || Micro Synthetic Jet Actuator Manufacturing || 224,420 || 74,806 || 299,226

20 || 284961 || SATCAS || SIMULATION OF THE ASSEMBLY TOLERANCES FOR COMPOSITE AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES || 368,531 || 122,844 || 491,375

21 || 286745 || WiMo || Outer Wing Metrology || 1,054,452 || 401,584 || 1,456,036

22 || 287120 || Wing Reflectometry || In-Flight Monitoring of Wing Surface with Quasi tangential Reflectometry and Shadow Casting || 482,100 || 160,700 || 642,800

23 || 287110 || MODELSSA || Modelica Electrical System Simulation and Analysis || 223,978 || 175,638 || 399,616

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

24 || 285758 || QUALIFY || Qualification of insulation materials to engine oils || 75,000 || 75,000 || 150,000

25 || 287122 || BASE || Business Aviation for Sustainable Economy || 177,728 || 59,242 || 236,970

26 || 285152 || DTV || DTV : Dispatch Towing Vehicle, for "Engines Stopped" Aircraft Taxiing || 950,952 || 958,250 || 1,909,202

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || € 13,750,443 || € 8,083,014 || € 21,833,457

27 || 287087 || AeroSim || Development of a Selective Laser Melting (SLM) Simulation tool for Aero Engine applications || 700,290 || 268,114 || 968,404

28 || 286786 || ICARO || In-field CFRP surfaces Contamination Assessment by  aRtificial Olfaction tool || 177,778 || 59,259 || 237,037

29 || 287112 || AHEAD SOG || Smart Operation on Ground Wheel Actuator || 324,626 || 324,626 || 649,252

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || € 1,202,694 || € 651,999 || € 1,854,693

TOTAL || € 14,953,137 || € 8,735,013 || € 23,688,150

2.3.
Call 8 SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01

2.3.1.
Annex 4: Topics overview CS JU call 8 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01).

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (€) || Maximum funding (€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky – Eco-Design || 12 || 6,410,000 || 4,807,500

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 - EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || || 2,050,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-01-018 || Environmental Data Models and Interface development || || 720,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-01-019 || Borate-free cleaners used in anodizing processes || || 100,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-01-020 || Chromate-free sealing of TSA || || 100,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-01-021 || Industrialisation Set-Up of Thermoplastics «In situ » Consolidation Process || || 290,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-01-022 || Development of flexible inductive thin sheet heating device for FRP repair applications || || 200,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-01-023 || To develop recycling technologies of aeronautical composite materials through mechano-physical approaches || || 140,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-01-024 || Simplified LCA Tool development || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-01-025 || Production of yarns and fabrics based on recycled carbon fibres (CFs) || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-ECO-02 || Area-02 - EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) || || 4,360,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-02-008 || Electrical Model of Generic Architecture Electrical Power Distribution || || 300,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-02-009 || Alternator with active power rectification and health monitoring || || 1,700,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-02-010 || Development, Construction and Integration of Systems for Ground Thermal Test Bench || || 2,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-ECO-02-011 || Heat pipe for critical applications || || 360,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 6 || 1,330,000 || 997,500

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 - Low weight configurations || || 770,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-GRA-01-035 || Smart maintenance technologies || || 220,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-GRA-01-036 || Development of methodology for selection and integration of sensors in fuselage stiffened panels. Testing scheme, testing of sensorised fuselage stiffened panels and data processing. || || 100,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-GRA-01-037 || Advanced fuselage and wing structure based on innovative alumiunium lithium alloy - numerical trade off study and experimental stiffened panel validation. || || 450,000 ||

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (€) || Maximum funding (€)

JTI-CS-GRA-02 || Area-02 - Low noise configurations || || 460,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-GRA-02-015 || Advanced concepts for trailing edge morphing wings - Design and Manufacturing of test rig and test samples - Test Execution || || 210,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-GRA-02-016 || Novel nose wheel evolution for noise reduction || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-05 || Area-05 - New configurations || || 100,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-GRA-05-006 || Updated Regional traffic scenario to upgrade Requirements for "Future Regional Aircraft”. || || 100,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 5 || 3,150,000 || 2,362,500

JTI-CS-GRC-03 || Area-03 - Integration of innovative electrical systems || || 2,150,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-GRC-03-006 || EMA for utility consumer systems: EMA for Landing Gear || || 1,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-GRC-03-007 || Innovative Dynamic Rotor Brake || || 700,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-GRC-03-008 || Innovative High Voltage Energy Storage System for Advanced Rotorcraft Integration. || || 450,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-05 || Area-05 - Environmentally friendly flight paths || || 800,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-GRC-05-005 || Integrated ATC/tiltrotor simulation of low-noise procedures and evaluation of the impact on operators || || 800,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-06 || Area-06 - Eco Design for Rotorcraft || || 200,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-GRC-06-003 || Dismantling and recycling of ecodesigned helicopter demonstrators || || 200,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 18 || 20,000,000 || 15,000,000

JTI-CS-SAGE-01 || Area-01 - Geared Open Rotor || || 1,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-01-001 || Lean Burn Control System Verification Rig || || 1,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-02 || Area-02 - Direct Drive Open Rotor || || 4,500,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-02-006 || Pitch Change Mechanism key technologies maturation || || 2,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-02-007 || PCM kinematic demonstration || || 2,200,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-02-008 || Propellers electrical de-icing system: reliability assessment of key technologies for high temperature electrical machines || || 300,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 - Large 3-shaft turbofan || || 6,900,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-03-007 || Large 3-shaft Demonstrator – Core Turbomachinery – High Temperature Flexible PCB || || 600,000 ||

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (€) || Maximum funding (€)

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-03-009 || Large 3-shaft Demonstrator – Aeroengine intake acoustic liner technology development || || 5,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-03-010 || Steel casting process advancement || || 800,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-03-011 || Advanced press forming and hardening of high strength steels || || 500,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-04 || Area-04 - Geared Turbofan || || 5,300,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-04-008 || Casting process optimization and validation of hollow multivane clusters with thin walls and trailing edges || || 600,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-04-009 || Integrating forging- and process-simulation into SAGE4 GTF LPT rotor design || || 400,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-04-010 || Total Measurement System for Geometry and Surface Inspection of bladed Disks (TOMMI) || || 1,300,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-04-011 || Implementation of Carbon-Nanotube Rein-forced Aluminum for Aerospace Heat Ex-changer Applications || || 1,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-04-012 || Electric Smart Engine Actuator || || 1,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-04-013 || High temperature Ni-based alloy forging process advancement || || 500,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-04-014 || High temperature Ni-based super alloy casting process advancement || || 500,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-05 || Area-05 - Turboshaft || || 2,300,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-05-013 || Feasibility study and prototypes manufacturing of oil tank in thermoplastic for Helicopter Engine || || 450,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-05-014 || Hot environment unsteady pressure sensors || || 750,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SAGE-05-015 || Development of Quiet exhaust noise attenuation technologies || || 1,100,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 12 || 9,900,000 || 7,425,000

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area01 – Smart Wing Technology || || 2,100,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-01-SFWA-01-034 || Analysis of sensitivity/robustness of distributed micron-sized roughness elements (MSR) for transition delay || || 500,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-01-SFWA-01-035 || Grooved paint surface manufacturing and aerodynamic testing || || 350,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-01-SFWA-01-036 || Automated riblet application on relevant aircraft parts || || 550,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-01-SFWA-01-037 || Basic wind tunnel investigation to explore the use of Active Flow Control technology for aerodynamic load control || || 250,000 ||

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (€) || Maximum funding (€)

JTI-CS-2011-01-SFWA-01-038 || High Voltage amplifier for MEMS-based Active Flow Control (AFC) actuators || || 450,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area02 – New Configuration || || 3,150,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-01-SFWA-02-012 || Design and manufacturing of an innovative shield - A || || 70,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-01-SFWA-02-013 || Design and manufacturing of an innovative shield - B || || 90,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-01-SFWA-02-014 || Design and manufacturing of an innovative shield - C || || 90,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-01-SFWA-02-015 || Ground Based Structural and Systems Demonstrator Phase 3 – Component and sub-system manufacture || || 2,900,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-03 || Area03 – Flight Demonstrators || || 4,650,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SFWA-03-006 || Outer wing assembly for tooling manufacturing || || 3,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SFWA-03-007 || Low drag wing foam cover for flight test || || 900,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SFWA-03-008 || Acoustic Inlet Lip panel large scale endurance demonstrator || || 750,000 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 5 || 1,700,000 || 1,275,000

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 - Management of Aircraft Energy || || 1,450,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SGO-02-014 || Construction of evaluation Power Modules to a given design || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SGO-02-026 || Modelica Model Library Development Part I || || 300,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SGO-02-032 || Current return simulation (methodology & tool) || || 400,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SGO-02-033 || Optimisation of coating for low pressure operation of power electronics and identification of pass and fail criteria for respective corona testing || || 500,000 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 - Management of Trajectory and Mission || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-1-SGO-03-011 || Flight operations for novel Continous Descent Operations || || 250,000 ||

TOTAL (€) || 58 || 42,490,000 || 31,867,500

2.3.2.
Annex 5: Grant agreements signed or under
negotiation. CS JU call 8 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01).

Due to the timing of this
call, the negotiation of GAPs was completed at the end of the year; as a
consequence, few GAPs were finalised in 2011. The following table provides the
list of GAP signed or in negotiation for this call 8.

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

1 || 296698 || ENDAMI || Environmental Data Models and Interface development in Aviation ||  539,979 ||  180,018 ||  719,997

2 || 296631 || TARTASEAL || Chromate free and energy efficient sealing of TSA anodic films for corrosion protection ||  75,000 ||  25,000 ||  100,000

3 || 296501 || CONDUCTOR || Flexible Conductive Composite Repair Heaters ||  128,999 ||  43,001 ||  172,000

4 || 296546 || SUSRAC || Sustainable recycling of aircrafts composites ||  104,717 ||  34,909 ||  139,626

5 || 296714 || BIO\_LCA\_TOOL || SIMPLIFIED LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT TOOL ||  181,875 ||  60,624 ||  242,499

6 || 296472 || SUPREMAE || A Supervised Power Regulation for Energy Management of Aeronautical Equipment ||  225,000 ||  75,000 ||  300,000

7 || 296090 || AEGART || AIRCRAFT ELECTRICAL GENERATION SYSTEM WITH ACTIVE RECTIFICATION AND HEALTH MONITORING ||  809,165 ||  809,166 ||  1,618,331

8 || 296570 || AeroL-HP || Development, construction, integration, and progress toward to heat pipes monitoring and qualification on aircrafts ||  269,932 ||  89,978 ||  359,910

9 || 296489 || RIFPA || Grooved paint surface manufacturing for aerodynamic drag reduction testing ||  262,310 ||  87,437 ||  349,747

10 || 296482 || RETAX || Rotorcraft Electric Taxiing ||  472,689 ||  472,689 ||  945,378

11 || 296369 || MoMoLib || Modelica Model Library Development for Media, Magnetic Systems and Wavelets ||  218,919 ||  72,973 ||  291,892

12 || 296536 || GENIAL || optimizinG Electrical Network In AirpLane composite structures ||  223,924 ||  174,742 ||  398,666

13 || 296658 || NOCONDES || Novel Continuous Descent Simulation Test Support ||  187,121 ||  62,376 ||  249,497

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || € 3,699,630 || € 2,187,913 || € 5,887,543

14 || 296687 || BFCleaner || Borate Free Cleaners for Aluminium Alloys ||  64,470 ||  31,910 ||  96,380

15 || 296549 || ISINTHER || Industrialization setup of Thermoplastics in situ consolidation process ||  195,540 ||  88,900 ||  284,440

16 || 296722 || HVRCFM || The Conversion of Recycled Carbon Fibre Yarn and Tape Into High Value Fabrics and Materials ||  187,500 ||  62,500 ||  250,000

17 || 296700 || BESTT || Development, Construction and Integration of Bench Systems for Ground Thermal Tests ||  1,495,853 ||  498,617 ||  1,994,470

18 || 296138 || MAGNASENSE || Magnetostrictive sensor applications for self-sensing of composite structures ||  165,000 ||  55,000 ||  220,000

19 || 296514 || STRAINMON || Strain Monitoring in Composite Stiffened Panels Using Sensors ||  74,940 ||  24,980 ||  99,920

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

20 || 296595 || AFSIAL || Advanced fuselage and wing structure based on innovative Al-Li alloys ||  271,837 ||  173,063 ||  444,900

21 || 296617 || SMyTE || Advanced concepts for trailing edge morphing wings - Design and manufacturing of test rig and test samples - Test execution ||  158,540 ||  50,731 ||  209,271

22 || 296636 || MEFGRA || A Model for the Evaluation of Future Green Regional Aircrafts ||  62,000 ||  23,750 ||  85,750

23 || 296693 || HERRB || Helicopter Electric Regenerative Rotor Brake ||  523,835 ||  174,494 ||  698,329

24 || 296648 || TRAVEL || Tilt Rotor ATM Integrated Validation of Environmental Low Noise Procedures ||  573,640 ||  222,760 ||  796,400

25 || 296671 || LeVeR || Lean Burn Control System Verification Rig ||  535,693 ||  415,137 ||  950,830

26 || 296515 || OREAT II || Open Rotor Engines Advanced Technologies II ||  940,371 ||  940,372 ||  1,880,743

27 || 296503 || HT° Motor windings || Reliability assessment of key technologies for high temperature electrical machines ||  219,733 ||  73,245 ||  292,978

28 || 296701 || LHTFPCB || Demonstration of a large, high temperature, flexible printed circuit board ||  357,852 ||  238,202 ||  596,054

29 || 296115 || ALTD || Large 3-shaft Demonstrator - Aeroengine intake acoustic liner technology development ||  2,484,620 ||  2,289,343 ||  4,773,963

30 || 296585 || LEAN || Development of light-weight steel castings for efficient aircraft engines ||  596,965 ||  164,370 ||  761,335

31 || 296543 || ViMaQ || Hot sheet metal forming of aerospace materials - Virtual manufacturing and enhanced quality ||  290,750 ||  207,250 ||  498,000

32 || 296526 || INTFOP || Integrating Forging and Process Simulation for turbine disks ||  182,500 ||  182,500 ||  365,000

33 || 296541 || AMI4BLISK || Automated Geometrical Measurement and Visual Inspection for Blisks ||  765,493 ||  527,870 ||  1,293,363

34 || 296656 || CNTHex || Carbon-Nanotube Reinforced Aluminium Aerospace Heat Exchanger ||  296,187 ||  296,192 ||  592,379

35 || 296474 || E-SEMA || Development of Electric Smart Actuator for gas turbine engines ||  588,664 ||  379,136 ||  967,800

36 || 296540 || HiTNiFo || Development of an advanced design and production process of High Temperature Ni-based Alloy Forgings ||  260,875 ||  194,125 ||  455,000

37 || 296250 || HITECAST || High temperature Ni-based super alloy casting process advancement ||  325,000 ||  175,000 ||  500,000

38 || 296587 || LIGHT-TANK || Feasibility study and prototypes manufacturing of oil tank in thermoplastic for Helicopter Engine ||  307,887 ||  141,989 ||  449,876

39 || 296551 || HEXENOR || Development of Helicopter EXhaust Engine NOise Reduction technologies ||  666,647 ||  417,182 ||  1,083,829

40 || 296507 || RODTRAC || Robustness of distributed micron-sized roughness-element for transition control ||  375,000 ||  125,000 ||  500,000

41 || 296613 || INARAS || Automated Riblets Application on Aircraft Parts ||  412,469 ||  137,489 ||  549,958

|| || || || || ||

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

|| || || || || ||

42 || 296345 || STARLET || Basic Wind Tunnel Investigation to Explore the Use of Active Flow Control Technology for Aerodynamic Load Control ||  190,140 ||  59,711 ||  249,851

43 || 296681 || HIVOLA || High Voltage amplifier for MEMS-based Active Flow Control (AFC) Actuators ||  334,499 ||  111,499 ||  445,998

44 || 296688 || IMPSHIELDA || Impact Shield A ||  51,000 ||  17,000 ||  68,000

45 || 296692 || HAGTIS || Hybrid Armid Glass Titanium Innovative Shields ||  66,600 ||  22,200 ||  88,800

46 || 296516 || DEMAIN || Design and MAnufacturing of INnovative shields ||  67,208 ||  22,402 ||  89,610

47 || 296092 || GBSSD(3) || Ground Based Structural & Systems Demonstrator Phase 3 - Component and sub-system manufacture ||  1,448,175 ||  1,448,175 ||  2,896,350

48 || 296588 || PROUD || PRECISSION OUTER WING ASSEMBLY DEVICES ||  2,923,000 ||  0 ||  2,923,000[5]

49 || 296093 || ALEAP || Acoustic    Inlet    Lip    panel    large    scale endurance demonstrator ||  374,778 ||  374,779 ||  749,557

|| || || || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || € 18,835,261 || € 10,366,873 || € 29,202,134

TOTAL || € 22,534,891 || € 12,554,786 || € 35,089,677

.

2.4.
Call 9 SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02

2.4.1.
Annex 6: Topics overview.  CS JU call 9 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02).

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (€) || Maximum funding (€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky - EcoDesign || 6 || 1,530,000 || 1,147,500

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 - EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || || 1,530,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-ECO-01-026 || Development of a bamboo fiber process suitable for aeronautical composites applications || || 150,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-ECO-01-027 || Development of an innovative bio resin for structural aeronautical structures || || 350,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-ECO-01-028 || Development and implementation of conductive coating for Magnesium sheets in a/c || || 160,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-ECO-01-029 || Application of selective laser melting and electron beam melting for direct manufacturing of titanium stator vanes || || 150,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-ECO-01-030 || Industrialisation of an ecolonomic out of autoclave polymerization for LRI demonstrator || || 520,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-ECO-01-031 || Green integrated polyurethane foams with improved fire resistance for airliner seat cushions || || 200,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 3 || 1,835,000 || 1,376,250

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 - Low weight configurations || || 185,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-GRA-01-038 || Design, manufacturing and impact test on selected panels with advanced composite material || || 185,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-03 || Area-03 - All electric aircraft || || 1,650,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-GRA-03-004 || Advanced Flight Control System – Design, Development and Manufacturing of an Electro Mechanical Actuator with associated Electronic Control Unit and dedicated Test Bench || || 900,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-GRA-03-005 || Design, development and manufacturing of EMA and Test Set-up for advanced Landing Gear System actuation || || 750,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 3 || 1,230,000 || 922,500

JTI-CS-GRC-01 || Area-01 - Innovative Rotor Blades || || 800,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-GRC-01-006 || Wind Tunnel Testing of Active Rotor || || 500,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-GRC-01-007 || Gurney flap actuator, mechanism and control electronics for a Model scale helicopter rotor blade (Develop and supply the actuation system for integration into the active model rotor blade) || || 300,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-03 || Area-03 - Integration of innovative electrical systems || || 430,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-GRC-03-009 || Adaptation kit design & manufacturing : APU drive || || 430,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 3 || 4,300,000 || 3,225,000

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 - Large 3-shaft turbofan || || 1,800,000 ||

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (€) || Maximum funding (€)

JTI-CS-2011-2-SAGE-03-012 || Non-metallic Pipes for Aeroengine Dressings || || 1,800,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-04 || Area-04 - Geared Turbofan || || 2,500,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-SAGE-04-015 || Development of Innovative SLM-Machinery for High Temperature Aero Engine Applications || || 1,500,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-SAGE-04-016 || Low Pressure Turbine Surface Temperature Measurement for Geared Turbo Fan Turbine Application || || 1,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 6 || 7,200,000 || 5,400,000

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area01 – Smart Wing Technology || || 600,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-SFWA-01-039 || Pattern measurements using laser scattering || || 200,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-SFWA-01-040 || Morphing Skin Design Tools and Demonstration || || 400,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area02 – New Configuration || || 4,600,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-SFWA-02-016 || Design and Manufacture of a High Speed Wind Tunnel Model for the ONERA S1MA Facility || || 2,500,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-SFWA-02-017 || Advanced Pylon Noise Reduction Design and Characterisation through flight worthy PIV || || 600,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-SFWA-02-018 || CROR Partial propeller blade release design solution || || 1,500,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-03 || Area03 – Flight Demonstrators || || 2,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-SFWA-03-009 || Final Assembly Line Assembly Jigs and Fixtures for flight test demonstrator || || 2,000,000 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 2 || 850,000 || 637,500

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 - Management of Aircraft Energy || || 600,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-SGO-02-034 || EWIS safety analysis tool || || 600,000 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-04 || Area-04 - Aircraft Demonstrators || || 250,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-2-SGO-04-003 || Solid State Power Controllers test benches || || 250,000 ||

TOTAL (€) || 23 || 16,945,000 || 12,708,750

2.4.2.
Annex 7: Grant agreements signed or under
negotiation. CS JU
call 9 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02)

Due to the timing of this
call, no negotiation of GAPs was completed at the end of the year; as a
consequence, all 16 GAPs will be finalised in 2012. The following table
provides the list of GAP in negotiation for this call 9.

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

1 || 298037 || BIFTTEC || Bamboo Innovative Fiber for Technical Textile and Environment Conservation ||  107,536 ||  40,691 ||  148,227

2 || 298090 || BME Clean Sky 027 || Development of an innovative bio-based resin for aeronautical applications ||  262,500 ||  87,500 ||  350,000

3 || 297173 || COMAG || Development and Implementation of Conductive coating for Magnesium sheets in A/C ||  120,000 ||  40,000 ||  160,000

4 || 298131 || IRIDA || Industrialisation of Out-of-Autoclave Manufacturing for Integrated Aerostructures ||  371,250 ||  123,750 ||  495,000

5 || 298171 || FIBIOSEAT || FIre resistant BIObased polyurethane foam for aircraft SEATing cushions ||  140,778 ||  57,902 ||  198,680

6 || 298013 || IMPANECS || Design, manufacturing and impact test on advanced composite panels ||  138,152 ||  46,051 ||  184,203

7 || 298176 || ARMLIGHT || Design, development and manufacturing of an electro-mechanical actuator and test rig for AiRcrafts Main LandIng Gear acTuation systems. ||  473,693 ||  274,338 ||  748,031

8 || 298192 || GUM || Active GUrney on Main Rotor blades ||  341,550 ||  141,850 ||  483,400

9 || 298182 || AGF || Active Gurney Flap ||  197,422 ||  102,155 ||  299,577

10 || 298161 || MARMELT || New innovative system for additive manufacturing of high temperature nickel superalloys for aero engine applications ||  746,500 ||  746,500 ||  1,493,000

11 || 298106 || Riblet Sensor || Light Scattering on Micro Structured Surface Coatings ||  149,958 ||  49,986 ||  199,944

12 || 298147 || STARTGENSYS || ADAPTATION KIT DESIGN & MANUFACTURING: APU DRIVING SYSTEM ||  301,125 ||  101,475 ||  402,600

13 || 298164 || MOSKIN || Morphing Skin with a Tailored Non-conventional Laminate ||  298,500 ||  101,500 ||  400,000

14 || 298187 || ACcTIOM || Advanced Pylon Noise Reduction Design and Characterization through flight worthy PIV ||  390,860 ||  179,300 ||  570,160

15 || 298120 || PBR Design Solution || CROR Partial propeller blade release design solution ||  1,039,347 ||  454,880 ||  1,494,227

16 || 298114 || JIF4FLIGHT || Final Assembly Line Assembly Jigs and Fixtures for flight test demonstrator ||  1,049,610 ||  949,710 ||  1,999,320

TOTAL (Proposals in Negotiation) || € 6,128,781 || € 3,497,588 || € 9,626,369

2.5.
Call 10 SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03

2.5.1.
Annex 8: CS JU call 10 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03). Topics overview

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (K€) || Maximum funding (K€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky - EcoDesign || 10 || 2,735 || 2051.25

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 - EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || 9 || 2,485 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-ECO-01-032 || Formulation and characterisation of new aluminium alloys for high temperature applications (250°C) || || 450 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-ECO-01-033 || Corrosion protection of aluminium unpainted parts: development of an appropriated Cr free sealing || || 240 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-ECO-01-034 || Metal recycling from a/c sources: Recycling routes screening and metallurgical approaches || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-ECO-01-035 || Environmental friendly ancillary materials development: Bio-sourced material, Recycled sourced mat. || || 160 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-ECO-01-036 || Development of fungi growth inhibition coating for fuel tank || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-ECO-01-037 || Disintegration of Fiber Reinforced Composites by electrodynamic fragmentation technique || || 435 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-ECO-01-038 || Aircraft insulation recycling routes and experiments || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-ECO-01-039 || Development of a chromate 6+  free chemical surface treatment for cast magnesium alloys protection || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-ECO-01-040 || Devel. of a fully automated preforming process for 3-D shaped composite dry fiber || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-ECO-02 || Area-02 - EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) || 1 || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-ECO-02-012 || Intelligent Load Power Management Rig Module || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 8 || 3,400 || 2,550

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 - Low weight configurations || 3 || 750 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-GRA-01-039 || Hybrid laminates Industrialization for a/c nose fuselage/cockpit || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-GRA-01-040 || Nose Fuselage/Cockpit dynamic characterization for internal noise attenuation || || 200 ||

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (K€) || Maximum funding (K€)

JTI-CS-2011-3-GRA-01-041 || Optimal tooling system for design for large composite parts || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-02 || Area-02 - Low noise configurations || 2 || 2,150 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-GRA-02-017 || Advanced low noise Main and Nose Landing Gears for Regional Aircraft -Trade off concept studies || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-GRA-02-018 || Low Noise Devices aeroacoustics numerical Simulation || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-03 || Area-03 - All electric aircraft || 3 || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-GRA-03-006 || Development and manufacturing of Programmable Electrical Loads and advanced Power Supply Modulation for Electrical Energy Management testing in Flight Demo || || 100 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-GRA-03-007 || Improvement of numerical models for JTI/GRA Shared Simulation Environment || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-GRA-03-008 || Control Console and Electrical Power Center for In-Flight Demo || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 3 || 1,322 || 991.5.

JTI-CS-GRC-03 || Area-03 - Integration of innovative electrical systems || 2 || 1,122 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-GRC-03-010 || Advanced programmable Loads for Electrical Test Bench || || 210 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-GRC-03-011 || Multi-source regenerative systems power conversion || || 912 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-06 || Area-06 - Eco Design for Rotorcraft || 1 || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-GRC-06-004 || Dismantling and recycling of ecodesigned helicopter demonstrators || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 4 || 7,400 || 5,550

JTI-CS-SAGE-02 || Area-02 - Direct Drive Open Rotor || 2 || 6,200 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SAGE-02-009 || CROR Propeller blades || || 4,000 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SAGE-02-010 || Contra-Rotating Open Rotor (CROR) Propeller barrels || || 2,200 ||

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (K€) || Maximum funding (K€)

JTI-CS-SAGE-04 || Area-04 - Geared Turbofan || 2 || 1,200 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SAGE-04-017 || Integration of an Acoustic Absorber into the Turbine Exit Casing (TEC) || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SAGE-04-018 || Development of a Microwave Clearance Measurement System for Low Pressure Turbines || || 700 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 5 || 5,650 || 4,237.5.

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area02 - New Configuration || 5 || 5,650 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SFWA-02-019 || Investigation of Bird Strike criteria for Natural Laminar Flow wings || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SFWA-02-020 || Development of an automated gap filler device || || 550 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SFWA-02-021 || Fixed Leading Edge Structure and Systems Demonstrator for a Business Jet laminar wing || || 1,500 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SFWA-02-022 || Design and manufacturing of an innovative cryogenic wind tunnel model with motorized empennage || || 1,300 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SFWA-02-023 || Development, manufacturing and testing of two different High Load Small Space Rotary Gear Types || || 1,500 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 10 || 5,690 || 4,267.5.

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 - Management of Aircraft Energy || 6 || 2,400 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SGO-02-014 || Construction of bespoke evaluation Power Modules || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SGO-02-021 || Development of key technology components for high-power density power converters for rotorcraft swashplate actuators || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SGO-02-033 || Optimisation of coating for the operation of power electronics with "open box" -housing in high altitude and identification of pass and fail criteria for respective corona testing || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SGO-02-035 || Disconnect device for jam tolerant linear actuators || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SGO-02-036 || Design and optimisation of locally reacting acoustic material || || 300 ||

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (K€) || Maximum funding (K€)

JTI-CS-2011-3-SGO-02-037 || Feasibility study of full SiC High Integrated Power Electronic Module (HIPEM) for Aeronautic Application || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 - Management of Trajectory and Mission || 3 || 2,540 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SGO-03-014 || Smart Operations on Ground power electronic with energy recycling system || || 1,390 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SGO-03-015 || Simplified noise models for real time on-board applications || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SGO-03-016 || Development of an Electronic Flight Bag platform with integrated A-WXR and Q-AI Agents SW || || 750 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-04 || Area-04 - Aircraft Demonstrators || 1 || 750 ||

JTI-CS-2011-3-SGO-04-004 || Design and manufacturing of a flight worthy intake system (scoop/NACA divergent intake) || || 750 ||

TOTAL (K€) || 40 || 26,197 || 19,647.75

2.5.2.
Annex 9:  Grant agreements signed or
under negotiation. CS JU call 10 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03).

Due to the timing of this
call, no negotiation of GAPs was completed at the end of the year; as a
consequence, all 24 GAPs will be finalised in 2012. The following table
provides the list of GAP in negotiation for this call 10.

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

1 || 306513 || ALT || Formulation and characterization of new aluminium alloys produced by ingot metallurgy for high temperature applications (250ºC) ||  311,447 ||  128,931 ||  440,378

2 || 307834 || SAA-Seal || Corrosion protection of Aluminium unpainted parts: development of an appropriated Cr free sealing process on thin SAA layer (≤5 µm) ||  179,985 ||  59,995 ||  239,980

3 || 307111 || AMICOAT || Development of new antimicrobial nanostructured durable coatings for fuel tanks ||  213,660 ||  71,220 ||  284,880

4 || 307659 || MAGNOLYA || Advanced environmentally friendly chemical surface treatments for cast magnesium helicopter transmission alloys preservation ||  149,790 ||  49,929 ||  199,719

5 || 306648 || I-PRIMES || I-PRIMES: an Intelligent Power Regulation using Innovative Modules for Energy Supervision ||  187,200 ||  62,400 ||  249,600

6 || 306681 || HYBRIA || Hybrid laminates. Industrialization for aircraft nose fuselage. ||  216,362 ||  66,633 ||  282,995

7 || 307767 || DynaPit || Nose Fuselage/Cockpit Dynamic Characterization for Internal Noise Attenuation ||  149,900 ||  49,967 ||  199,867

8 || 308225 || ALLEGRA || Advanced Low Noise Landing (Main and Nose) Gear For Regional Aircraft ||  1,309,221 ||  679,740 ||  1,988,961

9 || 306928 || CALAS || Computational Aero-acoustic Analysis of Low-noise Airframe Devices with the Aid of Stochastic Method ||  112,500 ||  37,500 ||  150,000

10 || 306880 || DSOT300-125S || development and manufacturing of programmable electrical load and advanced PSM for electrical energy management testing in flight demo ||  73,350 ||  24,450 ||  97,800

11 || 307707 || iSSE || Improvement of numerical models for JTI/GRA Shared Simulation Environment ||  112,455 ||  37,485 ||  149,940

12 || 307727 || SPLS || Smart programmable load and source ||  155,475 ||  51,825 ||  207,300

13 || 308129 || REGENESYS || Multi-source regenerative systems power conversion - REGENESYS ||  683,426 ||  227,809 ||  911,235

14 || 306997 || GREENBARRELS || Contra-Rotating Open Rotor (CROR) Propeller barrels ||  1,323,351 ||  441,117 ||  1,764,468

15 || 308265 || HOSTEL || Integration of a HOt STrEam Liner into the Turbine Exit Casing (TEC) ||  357,750 ||  119,250 ||  477,000

16 || 307866 || MICMEST || Microwave Clearance Measurement System for Low Pressure Turbines ||  349,993 ||  349,993 ||  699,986

17 || 307612 || BirdStrike || Investigation of Bird Strike criteria for Natural Laminar Flow wings ||  599,360 ||  198,120 ||  797,480

18 || 307869 || ELWIPS || Electro-thermal Laminar Wing Ice Protection System Demonstrator ||  738,857 ||  571,033 ||  1,309,890

19 || 304851 || MATPLAN || CONSTRUCTION OF BESPOKE EVALUATION POWER MODULES~(MATPLAN) ||  150,694 ||  95,731 ||  246,425

|| || || || || ||

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

20 || 307309 || PECOAT || Novel Coating Systems For Power Electronics In Aerospace Environments ||  363,176 ||  121,058 ||  484,234

21 || 307397 || HYPOTHESIS || Feasibility study of intelligent High Integrated Power Electronic Module (HIPEM) for Aeronautic Application ||  374,460 ||  124,820 ||  499,280

22 || 307526 || ARMONEA || Anotec Real-time MOdel for Noise Exposure of Aircraft ||  215,562 ||  71,854 ||  287,416

23 || 306927 || KLEAN || Knowledge-based EFB for green flight trajectory decision aid ||  559,492 ||  186,496 ||  745,988

24 || 308183 || SANDIT || Design and manufacture of a flight worthy intake system (scoop/NACA divergent intake) SCOOP AND NACA DIVERGENT INTAKE TRIAL (SANDIT) ||  466,355 ||  281,381 ||  747,736

TOTAL (Proposals in Negotiation) || € 9,353,821 || € 4,108,737 || € 13,462,558

2.6.
Grant agreements/project portfolio of
Clean Sky JU

2.6.1.
Annex 10: Grant agreements signed
(commitment amounts) for calls launched in previous years

80 GAPs relating to Calls
1 to 6 were signed in 2011. They are listed below:

·
SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

1 || 255811 || EMAS || Electric Motor And Sensor design and manufacture || 138,900 || 50,700 || 189,600

Total (signed GAPs) || € 138,900 || € 50,700 || € 189,600

·
SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

1 || 267322 || ELETAD || Electrical Tail Drive - Modelling, Simulation and Rig Prototype Development || 1,858,826 || 619,609 || 2,478,435

2 || 267651 || LUBEST || Performance and qualification tests of lubrication system equipment || 179,640 || 59,921 || 239,561

3 || 267522 || FATIGUETEST || Fatigue Test || 74,805 || 24,936 || 99,741

4 || 267571 || CARD || Contribution to Analysis of Rotor Hub Drag Reduction || 374,997 || 125,001 || 499,998

5 || 267525 || TIALBLADE || (BLADES INTO) HIGH TEMPERATURE MATERIAL || 172,477 || 60,628 || 233,105

Total (signed GAPs) || € 2,660,745 || € 890,095 || € 3,550,840

·
SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

1 || 270563 || ADHERO || Aerodynamic Design Optimisation of a Helicopter Fuselage including a Rotating Rotor Head || 618,750 || 206,250 || 825,000

2 || 270644 || CLEANLE || Concept Study of a cleaning device for wing leading edges || 29,955 || 9,985 || 39,940

3 || 270669 || COMPARE || COMPArative evaluation of NDT techniques for high-quality bonded composite REpairs || 112,497 || 37,503 || 150,000

4 || 270647 || ICE-TRACK || Support of Icing Tests (Runback-Ice behaviour of surfaces) and Icing Mechanisms || 172,100 || 57,367 || 229,467

5 || 270629 || MORALI || Multi-Objective Robust Assessment of heLicopter Improvements || 275,880 || 123,960 || 399,840

6 || 270624 || POTRA || Parametric optimisation software package for trajectory shaping under constraints || 158,288 || 138,711 || 296,999

7 || 270589 || CO-PROCLAM || COrrosion PROtective Coating on Light Alloys by Micro-arc oxidation || 291,675 || 107,545 || 399,220

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

8 || 270658 || STRAINWISE || Hardware & Software Development of Wireless Sensor Network Nodes for Measurement of Strain in Airborne Environment || 552,048 || 243,345 || 795,393

9 || 270526 || DT-FA-AFC || Development and Test of Fluidic Actuators for Active Flow Control Applications || 194,595 || 65,165 || 259,760

10 || 270666 || ESCRITP || Electrical Simulation Criteria & Tool Performances || 100,000 || 100,000 || 200,000

11 || 270577 || MEMFAC || A Microfabricated Actuator for Active Flow Control on Aircraft || 94,988 || 94,988 || 189,976

12 || 270597 || FLOWSENSYS || Flow sensor system for the separation detection at low speed in view of flight || 76,500 || 25,500 || 102,000

13 || 270593 || AWAHL || Advanced Wing And High-Lift Design || 319,544 || 130,456 || 450,000

14 || 270609 || CODE-TILT || Contribution to design optimization of tiltrotor components for drag reduction || 670,500 || 223,500 || 894,000

15 || 270539 || EASYPATCH || Prefabricated CFRP Parts || 112,050 || 37,350 || 149,400

16 || 270531 || FLOCOSYS || Efficient System for Flow Control Actuation || 45,450 || 15,150 || 60,600

17 || 270571 || MISPA || Proposal for the Development of an Applicator for Microstructured Paint Coatings Resulting in Significant Drag Reduction of Treated Surfaces || 182,608 || 70,265 || 252,873

18 || 270625 || MACOTECH || Design and manufacturing of smart composite panels for wing applications and development of structural health monitoring techniques || 89,955 || 29,985 || 119,940

19 || 270535 || CLEANCOMPFIELD || Construction and Assembly of a Prototype Surface Pre-treatment Tool for In-filed use || 112,500 || 37,500 || 150,000

20 || 270598 || ARCANGEL-ALPHA || ARCING AND NEXT GENERATION ELECTRICAL AIRPLANE POWER HAZARD ABATEMENT || 593,407 || 593,409 || 1,186,816

21 || 270586 || WINGTECH\_EVALUATION || WING BOX TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION  - TRADE-OFF STUDY FOR THE RANKING OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES BEST FITTING WING || 89,765 || 29,922 || 119,687

22 || 270612 || E-CFD-GPU || Efficient CFD Multi-physics programming research || 112,500 || 37,500 || 150,000

23 || 270641 || DARGOS || Definition of ATM Requirements for GRA Operations and Simulations || 112,065 || 37,355 || 149,420

24 || 270588 || AFCIN || Structural designs and tests for integration of active flow control concepts on a trailing edge high lift device || 321,599 || 108,401 || 430,000

25 || 270601 || GBSSD(2) || Design & Manufacture of a ground based structural/systems demonstrators || 249,807 || 249,808 || 499,615

26 || 270587 || RIBLET ROBOTICS || Concept for automated riblet application (robot-concept) || 130,000 || 130,000 || 260,000

27 || 270561 || TEMPO || Thermal Exchange Modelling and Power Optimization || 374,835 || 124,945 || 499,780

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

28 || 270584 || ELTESTSYS || Versatile and Eco-efficient Direct Drive Systems for Testing the Starters/Generators of Aircraft Engines || 440,675 || 205,325 || 646,000

29 || 270591 || SIEDIT || Development of a Slat with Integrated Electrical Deicers for Icing Wind Tunnel Tests || 185,000 || 185,000 || 370,000

30 || 270616 || COMPASS || Functional laminates development. Components compatibility and feasibility assessment. Industrialization || 149,997 || 50,000 || 199,997

31 || 270640 || MAWS || Modelling of Adaptive Wing Structures. || 150,000 || 49,999 || 199,999

Total (signed GAPs) || € 7,119,533 || € 3,556,189 || € 10,675,722

·
SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

1 || 271494 || CS-GYRO || MEMS gyrometer for wing behaviour measurement || 600,000 || 200,000 || 800,000

2 || 271492 || WINGACCS || Wing Dynamics Acceleration Sensor || 450,000 || 150,000 || 600,000

3 || 271498 || NLFFD || NLF Starboard Leading edge & Upper cover design & manufacture || 1,850,000 || 1,850,000 || 3,700,000

4 || 271496 || DEAMAK || Design And Manufacture of Krueger Flaps || 379,920 || 379,920 || 759,840

Total (signed GAPs) || € 3,279,920 || € 2,579,920 || € 5,859,840

·
SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

1 || 271874 || WISMOS || Wireless/Integrated Strain Monitoring and Simulation System || 183,125 || 66,835 || 249,960

2 || 271858 || DIMAG || Development and Implementation of Magnesium sheets in A/C || 52,500 || 17,500 || 70,000

3 || 271691 || ADVANCED || Advanced heating system and control mode for homogeneous high temperature curing of large composite repairs || 165,000 || 55,000 || 220,000

4 || 271882 || FATIMA || Fatigue testing of CFRP materials || 149,995 || 49,999 || 199,994

5 || 271829 || NURMSYS || Original design & manufacturing of a New Upstream Rotating Measurement System for gas turbine exhaust gases studies || 144,210 || 58,070 || 202,280

6 || 271847 || CLEOPATRA || CLEaner OPerations Attained Through Radars' Advance || 447,644 || 296,713 || 744,357

7 || 271813 || SAFEPEM || Safe Fieldbus dEvelopment for Power Electronic Module || 357,100 || 140,000 || 497,100

8 || 271843 || NEXTWING || Numerical and EXperimental shock conTrol on laminar Wing || 262,274 || 87,425 || 349,699

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

9 || 271872 || PPSMPAB || Piezo Power Supply Module for Piezo Actuator Bench || 320,513 || 106,838 || 427,350

10 || 271881 || ADAVES || Advanced avionics equipment simulation || 185,000 || 145,120 || 330,120

11 || 271875 || AERTECVTI || Test bench for endurance test and reliability prediction of avionics power electronic modules || 564,900 || 188,300 || 753,200

12 || 271838 || LH-LHT-RFT || Flight-tests with multi-functional coatings || 58,350 || 58,350 || 116,700

13 || 271816 || NEELEFFEC TINTHESKY || Magnetic Sensors with No Remanence for Aircraft Application || 428,750 || 171,250 || 600,000

14 || 271753 || VOCAL-FAN || VIRTUAL OPTIMIZATION CFD PLATFORM ALLOWING FAN NOISE REDUCTION || 149,335 || 49,780 || 199,115

15 || 271880 || WHEXPERS || Study and manufacturing of a Wasted Heat Exchanger and a hot air Piston Engine Recuperation System || 899,986 || 299,995 || 1,199,981

16 || 271855 || ROSIC || Robust Silicon-Carbide Technology for Aerospace DC-DC Conversion || 303,426 || 175,883 || 479,309

17 || 271788 || PEMREL || Sample power electronic module construction for testing, characterisation and manufacturability assessment || 337,141 || 162,431 || 499,571

18 || 271765 || NAA-CROR || Numerical aero-acoustic assessment of installed Counter Rotating Open Rotor (CROR) power plant || 150,000 || 50,000 || 200,000

19 || 271866 || CLFCWTE || Development of a Closed Loop Flow Control Algorithm for Wing Trailing Edge Flow Control Including Experimental Validation in Two Low Speed Wind Tunnel Tests || 419,393 || 139,798 || 559,191

20 || 271853 || FOS3D || Fiber Optic System for Deflection and Damage Detection || 448,669 || 149,557 || 598,226

21 || 271861 || LEATOP || Leading Edge Actuation Topology Design and Demonstration || 106,456 || 41,486 || 147,942

Total (signed GAPs) || € 6,133,766 || € 2,510,329 || € 8,644,095

·
SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

1 || 278144 || SUPERBLEND || Development of Thermoplastic Polymer blend with Low Melting Point and with Similar Properties than PEEK || 149,628 || 49,876 || 199,504

2 || 278415 || HELIDES || Helicopter Drag Prediction using Detached-Eddy Simulation || 110,463 || 36,821 || 147,284

3 || 278416 || HEAVYcOPTer || Contribution to optimisation of heavy helicopter engine installation design || 329,400 || 109,800 || 439,200

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

4 || 278393 || PT656 || GURNEY FLAP ACTUATOR AND MECHANISM FOR A FULL SCALE HELICOPTER ROTOR BLADE || 371,063 || 289,553 || 660,616

5 || 277927 || iMAPC || Development and validation of an integrated methodology in order to establish adapted production concepts for efficient turbofan engines || 720,000 || 240,000 || 960,000

6 || 277796 || E-Bird || Development of numerical models for aircraft systems to be used within the JTI/GRA Shared Simulation Environment || 112,500 || 37,500 || 150,000

7 || 278419 || WENEMOR || WIND TUNNEL TESTS FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE INSTALLATION EFFECTS OF NOISE EMISSIONS OF AN OPEN ROTOR ADVANCED REGIONAL AIRCRAFT || 1,374,993 || 578,334 || 1,953,327

8 || 278483 || HICOMP || Development and Manufacture of High Temperature Composite Aero Engine Parts || 376,555 || 376,557 || 753,112

9 || 277975 || ATTESI || Active Flow Control Technique on Trailing Edge Shroud for Improved High Lift Configurations || 344,834 || 114,946 || 459,780

10 || 278407 || SIMEAD || Suite of integrated models for electrical aircraft drives || 261,452 || 87,150 || 348,602

11 || 278365 || HiTME || High Temperature Electronics || 901,200 || 584,890 || 1,486,090

12 || 278366 || CASE || Fuel Control System Sensors and Effectors || 688,400 || 611,600 || 1,300,000

13 || 278228 || AdEPT || High Efficiency Fuel Pumping || 711,607 || 711,609 || 1,423,216

14 || 277580 || Flight-Noise-II || Turboprop and Propfan-Equipped Aircraft Noise Emission Model || 261,652 || 87,218 || 348,870

15 || 278268 || ESTERA || Multi-level Embedded Closed-Loop Control System for Fluidic Active Flow Control Actuation Applied in High-Lift and High-Speed Aircraft Operations || 187,470 || 62,510 || 249,980

16 || 278170 || Neural || Neural network computation for fast trajectory prediction || 112,316 || 37,439 || 149,755

17 || 278156 || CF-THREAD || Composites under Fatigue: Temperature and Humidity Related Environmental Ageing Damage || 224,749 || 74,916 || 299,665

18 || 278084 || DAFNE || Development of gamma-TiAl forgings in a low-cost near conventional hot-die process and process evaluation || 326,250 || 313,650 || 639,900

Total (signed GAPs) || € 7,564,532 || € 4,404,369 || € 11,968,901

2.6.2.
Annex 11: Grant agreements for which
activities have ended and/or final results are available

№ || GA № || Project acronym || Project Title || Call Identifier || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contribution (€)

1 || 255656 || SLD\_SCOOP || SLD and Icing tests on an Ice Protected Scoop Intake and Channel || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 129,769 || 43,260 || 173,029

2 || 255689 || FRARS || Future Regional Aircraft Requirements Study || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 37,395 || 12,465 || 49,860

3 || 255711 || AU-BB/EMI SENSOR NOD || Concept, design and prototyping of compact sensor nodes using electromechanical impedance and broad band acousto-ultrasonic method for structural health monitoring || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 43,759 || 14,586 || 58,345

4 || 255718 || COMET || Collaborative Meteorological Concept Validation (COMET) || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 74,889 || 24,964 || 99,853

5 || 255755 || THERMOCS || Thermosetting resin for Clean Sky || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 74,250 || 24,750 || 99,000

6 || 255760 || ORGANOCS || Organic-modification tailored to promote the correct interaction between the polymer and the filler || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 44,999 || 15,000 || 59,999

7 || 255866 || EHWAZ || Electrical Harness and Wires Analysis and optimiZation || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 199,194 || 199,194 || 398,388

2.7.
IMI JU

2.7.1.
Annex 12: Grant agreements signed
(commitment amounts)

In 2011, 13 grants
agreements were signed, 8 relating to the 2nd Call and 5 to the 3rd
Call.

Grant agreements
for 2 projects of Call 3 will be signed early in 2012.

2.8.
FCH JU

2.8.1.
Annex 13: Topics and respective FCH JU
funding for Call FCH-JU-2011-1

Application Area/ Topics called || Indicative FCH JU Funding Million €

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.1: Transportation & Refuelling Infrastructure || 36.0

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.1.1 Large-scale demonstration of road vehicles and refuelling infrastructure IV ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.1.2 In-situ characterization and diagnostic techniques for optimisation of water management and state of health determination of PEMFC

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.1.3 Improvement of PEMFC performance and durability through multi-scale modelling and numerical simulation

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.1.4 Periphery – FC-System Components

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.1.5 Next generation European MEAs for transportation applications

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.1.6 Investigation of degradation phenomena

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.1.7 Research & development on Bipolar Plates

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.1.8 Research & Development of 700 bar refuelling concepts & technologies

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.1.9 Fuel cell systems for airborne application

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.1.10 Pre-normative research on fast refuelling

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.2: Hydrogen Production & Distribution || 16.0

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.2.1 Demonstration of MW capacity hydrogen production and storage for balancing the grid and supply to a hydrogen refuelling station ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.2.2 Demonstration of hydrogen production from biogas for supply to a hydrogen refuelling station

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.2.3 Biomass-to-hydrogen (BTH) thermal conversion process

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.2.4 Novel H2 storage materials for stationary and portable applications

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.2.5 New generation of high temperature electrolyser

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.2.6 Low-temperature H2 production processes

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.2.7 Innovative Materials and Components for PEM electrolysers

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.2.8 Pre-normative research on design and testing requirements for metallic components exposed to H2 enhanced fatigue

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.2.9 Measurement of the quantity of hydrogen delivered to a vehicle

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.3: Stationary Power Generation & CHP || 38.0

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.3.1 Next generation stack and cell design ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.3.2 Advanced control for stationary power applications

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.3.3 Component improvement for stationary power applications

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.3.4 Proof-of-concept fuel cell systems

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.3.5 Validation of integrated fuel cell system readiness

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.3.6 Field demonstration of large stationary fuel cell systems for distributed generation and other relevant commercial or industrial applications

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.3.7 Field demonstration of small stationary fuel cell systems for residential and commercial applications

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.3.8 Pre-normative research on power grid integration and management of fuel cells for small residential, commercial and industrial applications

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.4: Early Markets || 15.0

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.4.1 Demonstration of fuel cell-powered Material Handling vehicles including infrastructure ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.4.2 Demonstration of application readiness of Back-Up Power and Uninterruptible Power Systems

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.4.3 Research and development of 1-10kW fuel cell systems and hydrogen supply for early market applications

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.4.4 Research, development and demonstration of new portable Fuel Cell systems

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.4.5 Research and development of Balance of Plant items for small portable and other fuel cell devices

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.5: Cross-cutting Issues || 4.0

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.5.1 Assessment of benefits of H2 for energy storage and integration in energy markets ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.5.2 Study of Financing Options to accelerate commercialisation of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.5.3 First responder educational and practical hydrogen safety training

SP1-JTI-FCH.2011.5.4 Development of EU-wide uniform performance test schemes for PEM fuel cell stacks

Total indicative FCH JU Funding[6]. || 109.0

2.8.2.
Annex 14: Grant agreements/project portfolio
FCH JU

Grant agreements
signed (commitment amounts) in 2011 (Call FCH-JU-2010-1)

The
Governing Board approved on 10 March 2011 a list of 27 proposals with
additional 16 on the reserve list, ranked in priority order according to
the evaluation results, to start negotiations to conclude Grant Agreements.

The
negotiations started on 18 March 2011 and were concluded during December 2011
with the approval of the Governing Board for funding of 26 projects
(from the initial 27 proposals, two failed during the negotiation phase, and
one proposal was selected from the reserve list). The
negotiations were concluded with the signature of the following Grants
Agreements (all before end 2011).

The
complete list is provided with further details below:

№ || GA № || Project acronym || Project title || A || B || C

JU contribut-tion (€) || In-kind contribu-tion (€) || Total contribution A+B (€)

1 || 277844 || FCGEN || Fuel Cell Based On-board Power Generation || 4.342.854 || 5.995.560 || 10.338.414

2 || 277916 || METPROCELL || Innovative fabrication routes and materials for METal and anode supported PROton conducting fuel CELLs || 1.822.255 || 1.613.837 || 3.436.092

3 || 278054 || DURAMET || Improved Durability and Cost-effective Components for New Generation Solid Polymer Electrolyte Direct Methanol Fuel Cells || 1.496.617 || 1.460.257 || 2.956.874

4 || 278138 || NEMESIS2+ || New Method for Superior Integrated Hydrogen Generation System 2+ || 1.614.944 || 1.778.397 || 3.393.341

5 || 278177 || IDEALHY || Integrated Design for Efficient Advanced Liquefaction of Hydrogen || 1.295.541 || 821.989 || 2.117.530

6 || 278192 || HIGH V.LO-CITY || Cities speeding up the integration of hydrogen buses in public fleets || 13.491.724 || 18.094.947 || 31.586.671

7 || 278195 || C3SOFC || Cost Competitive Component integration for StatiOnary Fuel Cell power || 4.001.529 || 3.867.247 || 7.868.776

8 || 278257 || METSAPP || Metal supported SOFC technology for stationary and mobile applications || 3.396.469 || 4.568.898 || 7.965.367

9 || 278525 || MMLRC=SOFC || Working towards Mass Manufactured, Low Cost and Robust SOFC stacks || 2.067.975 || 2.426.421 || 4.494.396

10 || 278534 || HYINDOOR || Pre-normative research on safe indoor use of fuel cells and hydrogen systems || 1.528.974 || 2.128.786 || 3.657.760

11 || 278538 || HY2SEPS-2 || Hybrid Membrane - Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) Hydrogen Purification Systems || 825.321 || 780.958 || 1.606.279

12 || 278629 || SUAV || Microtubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Power System developement and integration into a Mini-UAV || 2.109.518 || 2.077.582 || 4.187.100

13 || 278674 || LASER-CELL || INNOVATIVE CELL AND STACK DESIGN FOR STATIONARY INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS USING NOVEL LASER PROCESSING TECHNIQUES || 1.421.757 || 1.455.333 || 2.877.090

14 || 278727 || HYTEC || Hydrogen Transport in European Cities || 11.948.532 || 17.582.150 || 29.530.682

15 || 278732 || RESELYSER || Hydrogen from RES: pressurised alkaline electrolyser with high efficiency and wide operating range || 1.484.358 || 1.404.599 || 2.888.957

16 || 278796 || DELIVERHY || Optimisation of Transport Solutions for Compressed Hydrogen || 719.502 || 528.271 || 1.247.773

17 || 278798 || SOFCOM || SOFC CCHP WITH POLY-FUEL: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE || 2.937.753 || 3.281.860 || 6.219.613

18 || 278804 || SOFT-PACT || Solid Oxide Fuel Cell micro-CHP Field Trials || 3.950.893 || 6.361.810 || 10.312.703

19 || 278824 || ELYGRID || Improvements to Integrate High Pressure Alkaline Electrolysers for Electricity/H2 production from Renewable Energies to Balance the Grid. || 2.105.017 || 1.647.744 || 3.752.761

20 || 278855 || HYTIME || Low temperature hydrogen production from second generation biomass || 1.609.026 || 1.314.792 || 2.923.818

21 || 278862 || TEMONAS || TEchnology MONitoring and ASsessment || 1.132.046 || 668.556 || 1.800.602

22 || 278899 || DESTA || Demonstration of 1st European SOFC Truck APU || 3.874.272 || 5.966.735 || 9.841.007

23 || 278921 || FCPOWEREDRBS || Demonstration Project for Power Supply to Telecom Stations through FC technology || 4.221.270 || 6.370.379 || 10.591.649

24 || 278997 || REFORCELL || Advanced Multi-Fuel Reformer for Fuel Cell CHP Systems || 2.857.211 || 2.733.551 || 5.590.762

25 || 279075 || COMETHY || Compact Multifuel-Energy To Hydrogen converter || 2.484.095 || 2.443.790 || 4.927.885

26 || 279190 || TOWERPOWER || Demonstration of FC-Based integrated generator systems to power off-grid cell phone towers, using ammonia fuel || 4.936.631 || 4.466.475 || 9.403.106

TOTAL || € 83,676,084 || € 101,840.924 || € 185,517,008

2.8.3.
Annex 15: FCH JU Grant agreements for
which activities have ended and/or final results are available

Activities related to 5
grant agreement have already ended in 2011. The complete list is provided with
further details below:

GA № || Date GA started || Date GA ended || Project acronym || Initial requested funding (€) || Total costs (€) || Financial contributions[7]

JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (excluding JRC) (€) || Total contribution (€)

245133 || 01/01/ 2010 || 31/12/2010 || Next HyLights || 499,303 || 1,138,522 || 481,769 || 518,264 || 1,000,033

245142 || 01/01/ 2010 || 30/09/2011 || Auto-Stack || 1,193,016 || 1,304,459 || N/A || N/A || N/A

245332 || 01/01/ 2010 || 30/06/2011 || Prepar-H2 || 257,075 || 563,870 || N/A || N/A || N/A

256328 || 01/10/ 2010 || 30/09/2011 || HyGuide || 366,318 || 524,793 || N/A || N/A || N/A

256850 || 01/10/ 2010 || 30/09/2011 || H2FC-LCA || 311,957 || 386,863 || N/A || N/A || N/A

2.9.
ARTEMIS JU

2.9.1.
Annex 16: Grant agreements signed
(ARTEMIS JU 2010 - call 3)

№ || GA number || Project acronym || Project title || Total costs (€) || Total national funding (€) || Artemis JU contribution (€) || Additional own resources (€) || Actual date

1. || 269334 || ASTUTE || Pro-active decision support for data-intensive environments || 13,784,026.85 || 5,362,482.07 || 2,301,932.48 || 6,119,612.30 || 19/12/2011

2. || 269336 || D3CoS || Designing Dynamic Distributed Cooperative Human-Machine Systems || 14,548,703.65 || 5,193,398.75 || 2,429,633.51 || 6,925,671.39 || 14/12/2011

3. || 269354 || ENCOURAGE || Embedded Intelligent Controls for Buildings with Renewable Generation and Storage || 6,368,737.60 || 1,756,412.94 || 1,063,579.18 || 3,548,745.48 || 21/12/2011

4. || 269356 || HIGH PROFILE || High-throughput Production of FunctIonal 3D images of the brain || 16,920,598.00 || 5,017,647.04 || 2,825,739.87 || 9,077,211.09 || 21/12/2011

5. || 269374 || IoE || Internet of Energy for Electric Mobility || 45,432,229.11 || 14,370,762.28 || 7,587,182.26 || 23,474,284.57 || 21/12/2011

6. || 269335 || MBAT || Combined Model-based Analysis and Testing of Embedded Systems || 34,498,427.00 || 11,398,412.00 || 5,761,237.31 || 17,338,777.69 || 22/12/2011

7. || 269317 || nSHIELD || New embedded Systems arcHItecturE for multi-Layer Dependable solutions || 13,469,296.50 || 5,091,894.30 || 2,249,372.43 || 6,128,029.77 || 22/12/2011

8. || 269362 || PRESTO || ImProvements of industrial Real Time Embedded SysTems devel0pment process || 8,662,934.00 || 2,540,068.00 || 1,446,709.98 || 4,676,156.02 || 14/12/2011

9. || 269265 || pSAFECER || Safety Certification of Software-intensive Systems with Reusable Components || 10,419,109.00 || 2,599,302.68 || 1,739,991.20 || 6,079,815.12 || 14/12/2011

10. || 269389 || WSN DPCM || WSN Development, Planning and Commissioning & Maintenance ToolSet || 3,347,685.00 || 1,607,670.00 || 559,063.40 || 1,180,951.60 || 19/12/2011

TOTAL ||  167,451,747 || 54,938,050 || 27,964,442 || 84,549,255 ||

2.9.2.
Annex 17: Grant agreements to be signed[8] (Call 4 ARTEMIS-2011-1).

The decision giving the Executive
Director the mandate to negotiate the top-8 ranked projects was adopted at the
PAB meeting of 7 December 2011. The consortia were invited to negotiate the signature of the
grant agreements.

№ || GA number || Project acronym || Project title || Total costs (€) || Total national funding (€) || Artemis JU contribution (€) || Additional own resources(€) || Expected signature date

1. || 295378 || e-GOTHAM || Sustainable-Smart Grid Open System for the Aggregated Control, Monitoring and Management of Energy || 6,840,821.00 || 2,535,138.00 || 1,142,417.10 || 3,163,265.90 || Q3 2012

2. || 295311 || VeTeSS || Verification and Testing to Support Functional Safety Standards || 19,235,769.00 || 6,254,977.38 || 3,212,373.42 || 9,768,418.20 || Q3 2012

3. || 295371 || CRAFTERS || ConstRaint and Application driven Framework for Tailoring Embedded Real-time Systems || 17,591,554.00 || 6,162,910.45 || 2,937,789.51 || 8,490,854.04 || Q2 2012

4. || 295372 || DEMANES || Design, Monitoring and Operation of Adaptive Networked Embedded Systems || 20,539,440.00 || 6,721,708.00 || 3,430,086.46 || 10,387,645.54 || Q4 2012

5. || 295373 || nSAFECER || nSafety Certification of Software-Intensive Systems with Reusable Components || 16,304,267.00 || 4,620,783.75 || 2,722,812.59 || 8,960,670.66 || Q3 2012

6. || 295364 || DESERVE || DEvelopment platform for Safe and Efficient dRiVE || 25,916,285.82 || 7,513,016.06 || 4,328,019.73 || 14,075,250.03 || Q4 2012

7. || 295354 || SESAMO || Security and Safety Modelling || 12,013,116.40 || 3,220,723.82 || 1,968,114.42 || 6,824,278.16 || Q2 2012

8. || 295397 || VARIES || VARiability In safety critical Embedded Systems || 13,173,272.56 || 5,147,833.25 || 2,199,936.49 || 5,825,502.82 || Q2 2012

9. || 295440 || PaPP || Portable and Predictable Performance on Heterogeneous Embedded Manycores || 10,497,246.60 || 3,017,760.00 || 1,727,322.25 || 5,752,164.35 || Q3 2012

TOTAL || 142,111,772.38 || 45,194,850.71 || 23,668,871.97 || 73,248,049.70 ||

2.9.3.
Annex 18: Project reviews of ARTEMIS past
calls:

·
Project reviews – Call 2009

Project || Review date || Outcome

1 || pSHIELD || 22/03/2011 || Red light. Poor quality deliverables, management by the coordinator is seriously lacking.

29/09/2011 || Coordinator changed Recovering from major delays. Extended till 31/12/2011

2 || SMECY || 24/03/2011 || Good progress. Project recovered from long delay in contracts.

3 || SMARCOS || 7/04/2011 || Good progress but consortium cohesion needs to be improved (“islands”)

4 || eSONIA || 12/04/2011 || Minor issues with deliverables. Interim review requested by the consortium

14/11/2011 || Interim (informal = no external experts) review requested by the consortium to address issues raised in last annual review. The consortium has addressed these issues well. Project now fully on track (green light).

5 || ACROSS || 26/05/2011 || Project has made good progress.

6 || CHIRON || 08/06/2011 || Project is on track. An intermediate review is planned to check readiness for clinical trial.

11/11/2011 || Interim review to check readiness for clinical trial. Good progress reported. Change from clinical trial to observational study.

7 || iFEST || 30/06/2011 || Project has made good progress.

8 || R3-COP || 30/06/2011 || Good progress, though ambition is very high (=risk); being addressed

9 || RECOMP || 28/07/2011 || Good progress

10 || POLLUX || 27/5/2011 || Good progress

26/09/2011 || Good progress

11 || ME3GAS || 01/07/2011 || Good progress. Link with eDIANA to be studied.

12 || SIMPLE || 13/07/2011 || Good progress

·
Project reviews – Call 2008

Project || Review date || Outcome

1 || CAMMI || 27/04/2011 || Project has made good progress, but still has a lot to do in a short time frame. Very strict monitoring needed

23/11/2011 || Final review meeting showed good results. Final reports by 15/02/2012

2 || CHARTER || 10/06/2011 || Excellent progress

3 || eDIANA || 15/03/2011 || Generally good. Good progress on all activities, though thermal modelling task remains weak (over-simplified models used). Consortium advised to contact expert in more advanced thermal models (done, in the meantime).

4 || SYSMODEL || 09/03/2011 || Generally good. Good progress and all of the previous comments and recommendations were addressed. Some deliverables require more detail (specifically, references to academic courses should contain at least an abstract – the course content itself is copyright).

5 || iLAND || 01/06/2011 || Good progress

6 || INDEXYS || 12/7/2011 || Good progress, 6 months extension.

7 || SCALOPES || 28/03/2011 || Final review with good demonstrations.

8 || CHESS || 15/04/2011 || Good progress, but some delay. Will ask for  3 month extension.

9 || SMART || 22/09/2011 || Concern: big delay in national contracts. Request for 9 months extension.

10 || CESAR || 7+8/7/2011 || Excellent progress

20/10/2011 || IT cluster:  proved good progress in the rail sector

11 || EMMON || 21/06/2011 || Good progress

12 || SOFIA || none || Final review: Q1 2012 (project extended till 31/03/2012)

2.10.
ENIAC JU

2.10.1. Annex 19: Grant agreements signed in 2011 (call 3, launched in 2010)

10 grant agreements
relating to call 3, launched in 2010, have been signed during 2011. The
complete overview is detailed below:

№ || GA N° || Project acronym || Project title || Call ID || JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || National funding (€) || Total contribution || Date of GA signature

1. || 270683 || ARTEMOS || Agile RF Transceivers and Front-Ends for Future Smart Multi-Standard Communications Applications || 3 || 6,642,026.50 || || || || 08/11/2011

2. || 270707 || EnLight || Energy Efficient and Intelligent Lighting Systems || 3 || 6,899,794.00 || || || || 30/11/2011

3. || 270692 || EPAMO || Energy-efficient piezo-MEMS tunable RF front-end antenna systems for mobile devices || 3 || 2,224,524.00 || || || || 18/05/2011

4. || 270722 || ERG || Energy for a green society || 3 || 4,293,852.00 || || || || 07/12/2011

5. || 270716 || HEECS || High Efficiency Electronics Cooking Systems || 3 || 833,894.00 || || || || 05/10/2011

6. || 270693 || MotorBrain || Nanoelectronics for Electric Vehicle Intelligent Failsafe Drive Train || 3 || 6,112,614.00 || || || || 20/09/2011

7. || 270701 || NANOCOM || Reconfigurable Microsystem Based on Miniaturized and Nanostructured RF-MEMS || 3 || 930,284.00 || || || || 07/12/2011

8. || 270689 || NanoTEG || Nanostructured ThermoElectric Systems for Green Transport Applications || 3 || 1,016,910.00 || || || || 07/12/2011

9. || 270687 || PARSIMO || Partitioning and Modeling of SiP || 3 || 814,244.00 || || || || 18/10/2011

10. || 282557 || TOISE || Trusted Computing for European Embedded Systems || 3 || 3,491,271.00 || || || || 12/07/2011

Total || 33,195,414.00 || || || ||

№ || GA N° || Project acronym || Project title || Call ID || JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) \* || National funding (€) \* || Total contribution \* || Date of GA signature

1. || 270683 || ARTEMOS || Agile RF Transceivers and Front-Ends for Future Smart Multi-Standard Communications Applications || 3 || 6,642,026.50 || 25,554,478 || 8,543,956 || 40,740,460.50 || 08/11/2011

2. || 270707 || EnLight || Energy Efficient and Intelligent Lighting Systems || 3 || 6,899,794.00 || 23,582,899 || 10,833,438 || 41,316,131.00 || 30/11/2011

3. || 270692 || EPAMO || Energy-efficient piezo-MEMS tunable RF front-end antenna systems for mobile devices || 3 || 2,224,524.00 || 5,826,370 || 5,269,609 || 13,320,503.00 || 18/05/2011

4. || 270722 || ERG || Energy for a green society || 3 || 4,293,852.00 || 13,279,305 || 8,138,528 || 25,711,685.00 || 07/12/2011

5. || 270716 || HEECS || High Efficiency Electronics Cooking Systems || 3 || 833,894.00 || 4,009,515 || 899,690 || 5,743,099.00 || 05/10/2011

№ || GA N° || Project acronym || Project title || Call ID || JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) \* || National funding (€) \* || Total contribution \* || Date of GA signature

6. || 270693 || MotorBrain || Nanoelectronics for Electric Vehicle Intelligent Failsafe Drive Train || 3 || 6,112,614.00 || 19,468,130 || 11,021,728 || 36,602,472.00 || 20/09/2011

7. || 270701 || NANOCOM || Reconfigurable Microsystem Based on Miniaturized and Nanostructured RF-MEMS || 3 || 930,284.00 || 3,418,736 || 1,221,550 || 5,570,570.00 || 07/12/2011

8. || 270689 || NanoTEG || Nanostructured ThermoElectric Systems for Green Transport Applications || 3 || 1,016,910.00 || 3,931,502 || 1,140,869 || 6,089,281.00 || 07/12/2011

9. || 270687 || PARSIMO || Partitioning and Modeling of SiP || 3 || 814,244.00 || 2,214,294 || 1,847,175 || 4,875,713.00 || 18/10/2011

10. || 282557 || TOISE || Trusted Computing for European Embedded Systems || 3 || 3,491,271.00 || 12,995,835 || 5,048,449 || 21,535,555.00 || 12/07/2011

Total || 33,259,413.50 || 114,281,064 || 53,964,992 || 201,505,469.50 ||

\* Amounts after
negotiation

2.10.2. Annex 20: Grant agreements signed in 2011 (calls 4 and 5, launched
in 2011)

12 grant agreements
relating to calls 4 and 5, both launched in 2011, have been signed during 2011.
The complete overview is detailed below:

№ || GA N° || Project acronym || Project title || Call ID || JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || National funding (€) || Total contribution || Date of GA signature

1. || 296108 || DCC+G || DC components and grid || 4 || 3,075,756 || 9,543,817 || 5,798,122 || 18,417,695 || End of 2012

2. || 296132 || E2SG || Energy to smart grid || 4 || 5,683,465 || 17,016,933 || 11,332,316 || 34,032,714 || End of 2012

3. || 296212 || ELESIS || European library-based flow of embedded silicon test instruments || 4 || 4,005,340 || 15,120,090 || 4,858,644 || 23,984,074 || End of 2012

4. || 296127 || GreenElec || Green electronics – sustainable product manufacturing || 4 || 1,729,014 || 5,886,768 || 2,737,602 || 10,353,384 || End of 2012

5. || 296104 || PANORAMA || Ultra wide context aware imaging || 4 || 3,807,394 || 13,358,210 || 5,633,156 || 22,798,760 || End of 2012

6. || 296102 || SILVER || Semiconductor industry leading towards viable energy recovery || 4 || 1,786,100 || 6,248,544 || 2,660,561 || 10,695,205 || End of 2012

Sub total (Call 4) || 20,087,069 || 67,174,362 || 33,020,401 || 120,281,832 ||

7. || 304725 || BATTMAN || Battery management with solar powered devices || 5 || 964,176 || 3,507,437 || 1,301,891 || 5,773,504 || End of 2012

8. || 304712 || EEM450PR || European equipment and materials 450mm pilot line readiness || 5 || 14,048,060 || 54,803,830 || 15,268,234 || 84,120,124 || End of 2012

9. || 304668 || EPT300 || Enabling power technologies on 300mm wafers || 5 || 7,290,356 || 27,467,751 || 8,896,712 || 43,654,819 || End of 2012

10. || 304683 || HIPER3 || Heterogeneous integration process for emerging 3D/SiP || 5 || 14,074,453 || 50,780,857 || 19,422,848 || 84,278,158 || End of 2012

11. || 304603 || IDEAS || Interactive power devices for efficiency in automotive with increased reliability and safety || 5 || 1,661,669 || 4,854,229 || 3,434,211 || 9,950,109 || End of 2012

12. || 304653 || MIRTIC || Micro retina thermal infrared || 5 || 4,140,183 || 15,771,618 || 5,679,714 || 24,791,515 || End of 2012

Sub total (Call 5) || 42,178,897 || 157,185,722 || 54,003,610 || 253,368,229 ||

Grand Total - 2011 || 62,265,966 || 224,360,084 || 87,024,011 || 373,650,061 ||

[1] Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

[2] The Association for European
Nanoelectronics Activities (AENEAS) is a non-profit industrial association established
on 30 November 2006 to represent the R&D performers in the ENIAC Joint
Undertaking.

[3] http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/files/kets/hlg\_report\_final\_en.pdf

[4] The final definition of the output in this
Clean Sky framework will be subject to an updated agreement between the SAGE
ITD leaders and the Joint Undertaking Executive Director and this updated
strategy will be subject to formal adoption by the Governing Board not later
than March 2012.

[5] Based on submitted proposal; during negotiation in 2012 the funding
is reduced to €2.1 M, as eligible.

[6] The funding includes the FCH JU's own budget only. The final total
funding for projects is to be increased by EFTA contributions (up to 2.3 M€).

[7] When no final
payment has been made it is marked as "not available".

[8] Concerning the ARTEMIS JU, DG RTD will also update the information
on the ARTEMIS-2011-1 call in the next year's Commission's report, in case
there are changes in the list of the proposals selected for funding under that
call

Table of Contents

Introduction. 8

1........... Progress achieved by
the Clean Sky JU.. 8

1.1........ Introduction to the Clean
Sky JU.. 8

1.1.1..... Budget 10

1.1.2..... Governing structure. 10

1.1.3..... Organisation of the team in
Clean Sky JU. 11

1.2........ Outline of the main
activities and achievements in 2011. 11

1.2.1..... Key milestones. 11

1.2.2..... Progress in the
implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda. 12

1.2.3..... Major changes occurred in
the programme. 12

1.2.4..... Technology Evaluator 12

1.2.5..... Governance - Major decisions
taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies. 13

1.2.6..... Outcome of 1st interim
evaluation. 15

1.2.7..... Main communication
activities. 18

1.2.8..... Implementation of calls for
proposals (CFPs) in 2011. 20

1.2.9..... Results of calls for
proposals (CFPs) launched between 2009 and in 2011. 22

1.2.10... Success stories. 22

1.3........ Programme implementation. 23

1.3.1..... Grant agreements with
members. 24

1.3.2..... Description of the
'Integrated Technology Demonstrators' (ITD) activities. 24

1.4........ Call implementation. 24

1.4.1..... Grant agreements with
partners. 24

1.4.2..... Topic definition. 25

1.4.3..... Evaluation process. 25

1.5........ Call 7 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05. 27

1.5.1..... Summary information. 27

1.5.2..... Analysis of proposals
submitted. 28

1.5.3..... Grant agreements signed. 31

1.6........ Call 8 SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01. 31

1.6.1..... Summary information. 31

1.6.2..... Analysis of proposals
submitted. 32

1.6.3..... Evaluation results. 33

1.6.4..... Grant agreements signed. 35

1.7........ Call 9 SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02. 36

1.7.1..... Summary information. 36

1.7.2..... Analysis of proposals
submitted. 37

1.7.3..... Evaluation results. 37

1.7.4..... Grant agreements signed. 39

1.8........ Call 10
SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03. 40

1.8.1..... Summary information. 40

1.8.2..... Analysis of proposals
submitted. 41

1.8.3..... Evaluation results. 41

1.8.4..... Grant agreements signed. 44

1.9........ Grant agreements/project
portfolio. 44

1.9.1..... Grant agreements signed
(commitment amounts) for calls launched in previous years. 44

1.9.2..... Grant agreements for which
activities have ended and/or final results are available. 44

2........... Progress achieved by
the IMI JU.. 45

2.1........ Introduction to the IMI
JU.. 45

2.1.1..... Budget 45

2.1.2..... Governing structure. 46

2.2........ Outline of the main
activities and achievements in 2011. 46

2.2.1..... Organisation of the team in
IMI JU. 46

2.2.2..... Progress in the
implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda, 47

2.2.3..... Major decisions taken by the
Governing Board and other JU bodies. 47

2.2.4..... Outcome of 1st
interim evaluation. 48

2.2.5..... Main communication
activities. 49

2.2.6..... Success stories. 50

2.3........ Call implementation. 51

2.4........ IMI -3rd Call - 2010. 54

2.4.1..... Summary information. 54

2.4.2..... Analysis of proposals
submitted. 55

2.4.3..... Evaluation results. 58

2.5........ IMI -4th Call - 2011. 60

2.5.1..... Summary information. 60

2.5.2..... Analysis of proposals
submitted. 61

2.5.3..... Evaluation results. 65

2.6........ Grant agreements/project
portfolio. 67

2.6.1..... Grant agreements signed
(commitment amounts) or under negotiation. 67

2.6.2..... Grant agreements for which
activities have ended and/or final results are available. 67

3........... Progress achieved by
the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH) JU.. 68

3.1........ Introduction to the FCH
JU.. 68

3.1.1..... Budget 68

3.1.2..... Activities. 68

3.1.3..... Governing structure. 69

3.2........ Outline of the main
activities and achievements in 2011. 70

3.2.1..... Organisation of the team in
FCH JU. 70

3.2.2..... Main operational activities
and achievements. 70

3.2.3..... Amendment of Council
Regulation. 73

3.2.4..... Administrative and financial
activities. 73

3.2.5..... Governance - Major decisions
taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies. 75

3.2.6..... Outcome of 1st interim
evaluation. 76

3.2.7..... Main communication
activities. 77

3.2.8..... Success story. 78

3.3........ Call implementation. 80

3.4........ Call FCH-JU-2011-1. 82

3.4.1..... Summary information. 82

3.4.2..... Analysis of proposals
submitted. 83

3.4.3..... Evaluation results. 84

3.5........ Grant agreements/project
portfolio. 85

3.5.1..... Grant agreements signed
(commitment amounts) in 2011 (Call FCH-JU-2010-1) 85

3.5.2..... Grant agreements for which
activities have ended and/or final results are available. 86

4........... Progress achieved by
the ARTEMIS JU.. 86

4.1........ Introduction to the
ARTEMIS JU.. 86

4.1.1..... Budget 87

4.1.2..... Governing structure. 87

4.2........ Outline of the main
activities and achievements in 2011. 88

4.2.1..... Key milestones. 88

4.2.2..... Organisation of the team in
ARTEMIS JU.. 88

4.2.3..... Progress in the
implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda. 88

4.2.4..... Governance - Major decisions
taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies. 88

4.2.5..... Outcome of the first interim
evaluation. 89

4.2.6..... Main communication
activities. 90

4.3........ Call implementation. 93

4.3.1..... Evaluation of Project
Outline. 93

4.3.2..... Evaluation of Full Project
Proposal 95

4.4........ Call 4 ARTEMIS-2011-1. 95

4.4.1..... Summary information. 95

4.4.2..... Analysis of proposals
submitted. 97

4.4.3..... Evaluation procedure. 102

4.4.4..... Evaluation results. 103

4.5........ Project Portfolio. 106

4.5.1..... Grant agreements signed or
under negotiation. 106

4.5.2..... Project reviews. 106

4.5.3..... Grant agreements for which
activities have ended and/or final results are available. 106

5........... Progress achieved by
the ENIAC JU.. 106

5.1........ Introduction to the ENIAC
JU.. 106

5.1.1..... Budget 107

5.1.2..... Governing
structure. 107

5.2........ Outline of the main
activities and achievements in 2011. 107

5.2.1..... Key milestones. 107

5.2.2..... Organisation of
the team in ENIAC JU.. 108

5.2.3..... Address the 1.8
ratio. 108

5.2.4..... Progress in the
implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda. 109

5.2.5..... Governance -
Major decisions taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies. 110

5.2.6..... Outcome of 1st
interim evaluation. 111

5.2.7..... Main
communication activities. 111

5.2.8..... Success story. 112

5.3........ Call implementation. 112

5.4........ Call 4 ENIAC-2011-1. 114

5.4.1..... Summary
information. 114

5.4.2..... Analysis of
proposals submitted. 115

5.5........ Call 5 ENIAC-2011-2. 117

5.5.1..... Summary
information. 118

5.5.2..... Analysis of
proposals submitted. 118

5.5.3..... Evaluation
results. 120

5.6........ Grant agreements/project
portfolio. 121

5.6.1..... Grant agreements
signed (commitment amounts) 121

5.6.2..... Grant agreements
for which activities have ended and/or final results are available. 121

Table of
abbreviations. 122

6........... Annexes. 124

6.1........ Clean Sky JU.. 124

6.1.1..... Annex 1:
Description of the 'Integrated Technology Demonstrators' (ITD) activities. 124

6.2........ Call 7 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05. 140

6.2.1..... Annex 2: Topics
overview CS JU call 7 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05) 140

Identification.. 140

6.2.2..... Annex 3: Grant
agreements signed and proposals under negotiation (Call 7 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05) 143

6.3........ Call 8 SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01. 145

6.3.1..... Annex 4: Topics
overview CS JU call 8 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01). 145

6.3.2..... Annex 5: Grant
agreements signed or under negotiation. CS JU call 8 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01). 149

6.4........ Call 9 SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02. 152

6.4.1..... Annex 6: Topics
overview.  CS JU call 9 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02). 152

6.4.2..... Annex 7: Grant
agreements signed or under negotiation. CS JU call 9
(SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02) 154

6.5........ Call 10
SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03. 155

6.5.1..... Annex 8: CS JU
call 10 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03). Topics overview.. 155

6.5.2..... Annex 9:  Grant
agreements signed or under negotiation. CS JU call 10 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03). 159

6.6........ Grant agreements/project
portfolio of Clean Sky JU.. 161

6.6.1..... Annex 10: Grant
agreements signed (commitment amounts) for calls launched in previous years  161

6.6.2..... Annex 11: Grant
agreements for which activities have ended and/or final results are available  166

6.7........ IMI JU.. 167

6.7.1..... Annex 12: Grant
agreements signed (commitment amounts) 167

6.8........ FCH JU.. 168

6.8.1..... Annex 13: Topics
and respective FCH JU funding for Call FCH-JU-2011-1. 168

6.8.2..... Annex 14: Grant
agreements/project portfolio FCH JU.. 170

6.8.3..... Annex 15: FCH JU
Grant agreements for which activities have ended and/or final results are
available  172

6.9........ ARTEMIS JU.. 173

6.9.1..... Annex 16: Grant
agreements signed (ARTEMIS JU 2010 - call 3) 173

6.9.2..... Annex 17: Grant
agreements to be signed (Call 4 ARTEMIS-2011-1). 174

6.9.3..... Annex 18: Project
reviews of ARTEMIS past calls: 175

6.10...... ENIAC JU.. 177

6.10.1... Annex 19: Grant
agreements signed in 2011 (call 3, launched in 2010) 177

6.10.2... Annex 20: Grant
agreements signed in 2011 (calls 4 and 5, launched in 2011) 180

              Introduction

The present Commission Staff Working
Document accompanies the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament
and to the Council on the progress achieved by the Joint Technology Initiatives
Joint Undertakings in 2011. In compliance with Article 11 (1) of each Council
Regulation establishing the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings
(hereinafter referred to as "JTI JUs") it shall provide details on the
implementation of their research activities, i.e. number of proposals
submitted, number of proposals selected for funding, type of participants,
including SMEs, and country statistics. The document shall also "include
assessment results of the Technology Evaluator referred to in Article 8(1) of
the Statutes [of the Clean Sky JU], as appropriate" pursuant to
Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 71/2008 setting up the Clean Sky Joint
Undertaking.

The data contained in this document is
gathered through a specifically designed template, filled in by each JTI JU
under the guidance of the European Commission. It is divided into five main
sections, one per Joint Undertaking. Each section contains the following three
sub-sections providing information on the JTI JUs' activities in 2011 in a
structured and uniform way: 1) About the JTI JU, 2) Main activities in 2011,
and 3) Call implementation.

The description of the progress of each
Joint Undertaking throughout the year starts with a short introduction of the
JTI JU, outlining its legal basis, main objectives, research priorities,
funding and governing structure. The second sub-section highlights the key
achievements of the entity in 2011, both from operational and administrative
perspective. The submission and evaluation process of the individual JTI JUs
calls is also explained.

The last sub-section is dedicated to the
calls for proposals launched by the Joint Undertakings in 2011. In case the
entity has launched multiple calls during the year, each call is described with
a brief summary listing the call topics, eligible beneficiaries, timeline and
indicative budget, followed by detailed statistics on the submitted proposals
by types of participants and by country. A special attention is given to the
number of SMEs, whose participation in the call is presented separately.

Detailed statistics on the selected
proposals by types of participants and by country are provided, which can serve
for a comparative analysis of the participants at the different steps of the
call. Each sub-section ends with a table giving information on the grant
agreements signed in the respective call.

1.           Progress
achieved by the Clean Sky JU

1.1.        Introduction
to the Clean Sky JU

The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking
(hereinafter referred to as "CS JU") has been established by Council
Regulation (EC) 71/2008 of 20 December 2007 as a public-private partnership
between the aeronautic industry, represented by the leaders of the Integrated
Technology Demonstrators (ITDs)[1],
their associates, and the European Union, represented by the European
Commission.

The ITD leaders are twelve
industrial organisations that jointly committed to perform, complete and
exploit the Clean Sky programme[2].
Each leads or co-leads a specific Integrated Technology Demonstrator. The associate
members are seventy-four private or public organisations representing
industry, academia, SMEs and research centres, selected through a transparent
and fair process as permanent members of the Clean Sky JU. They committed to
perform and complete certain essential work packages in one or more ITDs for
the duration of Clean Sky.

The CS JU has been set up for a period up
to 31 December 2017 with the main objective to develop environmental
technologies impacting all flying segments of commercial aviation in order to
contribute to the ACARE targets[3]
for reduction of emissions and noise in air transport in Europe[4], thus contributing
to improving the air transport system worldwide.

The objective of the Clean Sky JU is
achieved through coordination of research activities that pool resources from
the public and private sectors, and that are carried out by the main
aeronautical stakeholders (ITD leaders and associates) directly and by partners
selected through open and competitive calls for proposals.

The CS JU is built upon six different
technical areas called Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITD),
which develop innovative technologies covering all segments of commercial
aviation. Each ITD is led by two founding members and operates through a
matrix structure. The ITDs are listed below:

(1)
Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) led by
Airbus and SAAB – focused on active wing
technologies that sense the airflow and adapt their shape as required, as well
as on new aircraft configurations to optimally incorporate these novel wing
concepts;

(2)
Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) led by
Alenia Aeronautica and EADS-CASA – dealing with
low-weight configurations and technologies using smart structures, low-noise
configurations;

(3)
Green Rotorcraft (GRC) led by
Agusta-Westland and Eurocopter – focused on
innovative rotor blades and engine installation for noise reduction, lower
airframe drag, diesel engine and electrical systems for fuel consumption
reduction and environment-friendly flight paths;

(4)
Sustainable and Green Engines (SAGE) led by
Rolls-Royce and Safran – integrating technologies
for low noise and lightweight low pressure systems, high efficiency, low
nitrous oxides and low weight core;

(5)
Systems for Green Operations (SGO) led by
Thales Avionics and Liebherr Aerospace – coping
with all-electric aircraft equipment and systems architectures, thermal
management, capabilities for green trajectories and improved ground operations;

(6)
Eco-Design (ED) led by Dassault Aviation
and Fraunhofer Gesellschaft – addressing the full
lifecycle of materials and components, focusing on issues such as optimal use
of raw materials, decreasing the use of non-renewable materials, natural
resources, energy, emission of noxious effluents and recycling.

Multiple links for coherence and data
exchange is ensured between the different ITDs.

Complementing these six ITDs, the Technology
Evaluator (TE) is a dedicated evaluation
platform cross-positioned within the CS project structure. The TE is
co-led by DLR and Thales and includes major European aeronautical research
organisations as members. Its objective is to assess the environmental impact
of the technologies developed by the ITDs and to assess the result of the
overall Clean Sky's project output.

1.1.1.     Budget

The total budget of the CS JU is equally
divided between the EU and its private members and is set to a maximum of € 1.6
billion. The EU contribution is maximum € 800 million, paid from the budget
appropriation allocated to the theme "Transport" of the Specific
Programme "Cooperation" under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)
of the European Union (2007-2013)[5],
while the industry should commit the resources at least equal to the EU
contribution.

1.1.2.     Governing
structure

The CS JU
governance is composed of three bodies: the Governing Board, the Executive Director
and the ITD Steering Committees. It is also supported by three advisory groups:
the Scientific and Technological Advisory Board (STAB), the National States
Representatives Group (NSRG) and the General Forum.

1.1.3.     Organisation
of the team in Clean Sky JU.

The composition of the CS JU executive team
developed significantly in 2011, with the recruitment of additional staff for
the team. On 31 December 2011 18 TA posts and 5 CA posts were actually filled. Moreover,
the Clean Sky JU registered an increase of workload, during the second half of
2011, which could not be covered by the current team. It was then necessary to
hire 3 interim staff for the second half of 2011.

1.2.        Outline
of the main activities and achievements in 2011

2011 was the second full year of independent functioning of the
Clean Sky Joint Undertaking. The CS JU achieved progress in both increasing its
operational capacity and in running the Clean Sky operations.

1.2.1.     Key
milestones

-
Publication and evaluation of the 3 CS JU's
calls for proposals in 2011 as planned, plus the evaluation of the last call of
2010;

-
Amendment to the model Grant Agreement for
Partners (GAP) and the model Grant Agreement for Members (GAM);

-
Internal processes monitoring;

-
Involvement of the Scientific and Technological
Advisory Board in the Clean Sky's activities;

-
Implementation of Internal Audit Plan and
Ex-Post Audit Strategy;

-
Implementation of the Communication and
Dissemination Strategy.

Besides, 3 additional staff members were recruited, growing to 23 by
the end of the year. The first internal audit started in November 2010, was
completed in 2011. Further implementation and updates of the CS JU main
documents took place: Quality Manual, Manual of Financial Procedures, and
Management Manual. The Development Plan was elaborated in several versions,
up to the adoption by the Governing Board in 2011.  The CS JU moved
successfully to the White Atrium building in Brussels in January 2011.

Clean Sky maintained close links with the
SESAR Joint Undertaking, which investigates air traffic management technologies
in line with the Single European Sky initiative, with dedicated meetings at
different levels (ITD, TE and JU).

1.2.2.     Progress in the implementation of the Strategic Research
Agenda

2011 provided an actual positive
contribution by Clean Sky activities to the implementation of the SRA.

The targets set at the beginning of the
Clean Sky programme were the subject of a re-assessment of validity and
consistency with respect to evolution of the outside scenario and the actual
progress of the activities related to the technology maturation and
implementation in the planned demonstrators.

The original content of Clean Sky as
defined in the proposal was compliant with the requirements of the SRA with
respect to the Greening of Air Transport, identifying the technical domains
where new technologies are worth exploring and developing to the level of
maturity needed for innovating future aircraft.

A re-assessment of actual progress and
validity of assumptions was performed, resulting in an updated work plan
(Development Plan) and updated forecast of achievable environmental benefits at
the end of the programme. To this scope the role of Technology Evaluator and
the dialogue with all ITDs (especially the "vehicle" one, with their
Conceptual aircraft definition) was essential, as provided by the First
Internal Assessment performed and recently completed [6].

1.2.3.     Major changes occurred in the programme

One of the most significant events that
occurred in 2011 concerned a change in scope of the first engine demonstrator
related to the Open Rotor configuration. At the beginning of the programme,
both Direct Drive solution and Geared Drive were considered by the two major
engine stakeholders (namely Safran and Rolls Royce respectively). However,
following a thorough assessment of the benefits and problems, Safran decided to
move to a Geared Drive solution. Therefore both demonstrators (SAGE 1 and SAGE
2) are based on this concept, although with different substantial technical
solutions inside. The programme has been revised and adapted to this change
accordingly, including the impact on the planned flight activity which is part
of SFWA ITD.

1.2.4.     Technology
Evaluator

The TE has been created in 2008 with the
objective to assess the environmental impacts and benefits of the overall Clean
Sky's project output. The general TE requirements were defined in 2009. In
2011, they were further reviewed and detailed, paying particular attention to
the first assessment cycle and to the needs of the trade-off studies[7]. This has been
expected to help the design and development of the TE system for the first
mid-term assessment planned for the end of 2011. Each year until the final
assessment in 2015, more accurate assessments are planned to be performed with
the updated sets of models resulting from the ITDs' progress.

1.2.5.     Governance
- Major decisions taken by
the Governing Board and other JU bodies

1.2.5.1.  Governing
Board

The CS JU Governing Board (GB) held four
meetings in 2011 (31 March, 14 June, 6 October and 14 December). The
following 7 written procedures were implemented:

-
Approval of the 2011 provisional accounts and
the approval of carry-over of unused commitment and payment appropriations from
2010 to 2011 (14 February 2011)

-
Adoption of the results of Call 5 and Call 6 (11
March 2011)

-
Adoption of the results of Clean Sky JU Call 7
(14 April 2011)

-
Adoption of Clean Sky JU Development Plan (15
April 2011)

-
Adoption of the Procedure 1.7.2.1 on the
Validation of the In-kind contribution of Members of the Clean Sky JU (2 May
2011)

-
Written procedure on the validation of the
in-kind contribution provided by non-EC members to the CSJU through the
execution of the Grant Agreements 2008, 2009 and 2010 (13 May 2011)

-
Adoption of the Budget 2011 amendment n° 1 (19
October 2011)

The Governing Board has adopted during 2011
the following key documents[8]:

-
31 March 2011: Modifications to the models Annex
II to the GAMs and GAPs, Rules for participation in calls, Amendments to the
Rules of Procedure of the GB,IAS Charter

-
14 June 2011: Final Accounts for 2010, Charter
of the Internal Audit Officer, Assessment of the Annual Activity Report 2010

-
6 October 2011: Strategic Audit Plan 2011 –
2013, HR Strategy Paper 2012 -2014, Modification of the Rules of Procedure of
the GB, Delegation Decision to the Executive Director

-
14 December 2011: Election of the Chairman (Mr
Charles Champion) and Vice Chairman (Ms Catalin Nae) for 2012, Annual
Implementation Plan 2012, Annual Budget Plan 2012, Establishment Plan 2012,
Modification to Rules of Procedure of the GB, IAS Strategic Audit Plan 2012
-2014, Amendment to Budget 2011 (titles 1 and 2), Communication Strategy and
Plan 2012, General Forum recommendations

It can be noted that most of the decisions
have been adopted unanimously or very close to unanimity, showing a smooth and
efficient decision-making process. Each Governing Board is prepared by a
"Sherpa Group" meeting, chaired by the JU, taking place at least 4
weeks in advance to the scheduled GB date.

1.2.5.2.  National
State Representative Group

The National States Representative Group
(NSRG) is an advisory body to the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.

Article 10 of the Council regulations
setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking outlines that it will review information
and provide opinion on programme progress in the Clean Sky JU, compliance and
the meeting of targets, updating of strategic orientation or links to Framework
Programme Collaborative Research. It shall also provide input to Joint
Undertaking on the interface with relevant national research programmes and
identification of potential areas of cooperation, as well as specific measures
taken at national level with regard to dissemination events, dedicated
technical workshops and communication activities.

It consists of one representative of each
EU Member State and of each other country associated with the Framework
Programme. It is chaired by one of these representatives. To ensure that the
activities are integrated, the Clean Sky Executive Director and the Chair of
the Governing Board or his representative attend the NSRG meetings and the
Chair of the NSRG attends as an observer at the Clean Sky Governing Board.

The NSRG held four meetings in 2011
(8 March, 16 May, 22 September, 22 November).

At the meeting, the Clean Sky JU presented
to NSRG all progress with respect to the overall objectives, in particular with
the work done on the Development Plan, the 2012 AIP, Communications Plan, Risk
Management assessment, increased activities of the STAB members, formal
development of the interfaces between the ITDs and the TE, etc..

Involvement in the Communication aspects
was also part of the 2011 NSRG scope, like the web site, Skyline, E News and
the Clean Sky at a Glance Brochure. NSRG Members also supported Clean
Sky activities in general, including the events with the European Parliament,
Aerodays and the Paris AirShow. The NSRG has received and discussed the reports
from the independent observers of the Calls evaluations. NSRG recognised the
achievement in SME involvement, as exemplified by the recognition of the 400th
participant in Paris. During 2011, the NSRG carried out a review of its own
operations and worked out a way to improve their contribution to the Clean Sky
success; these actions will be implemented in 2012.

1.2.5.3.  Scientific
and Technology Advisory Board

The Scientific and Technological Advisory
Board (STAB), set up in June 2010 as an advisory body to the CS JU, is now
composed of 10 high-level scientists and engineers, all independent from Clean
Sky stakeholders. Its purpose is to focus on the scientific and technical
analysis of Clean Sky from different perspectives: i) environmental impact; ii)
technology and scientific forecast; iii) societal aspects and  iv) economics.

Chaired by David Ewins, Professor at the
Bristol University and the Imperial College, it met four times in 2011
(10 February, 6 May, 9 September, 25 November), plus several dedicated meetings
of the sub-groups created to work on specific areas, namely:

-
WG1 dealing with TRL[9]and technology
maturity assessment

-
WG2 dealing with environmental targets and link
with demonstrators

-
WG3 working on socio-economic implications

Both working groups WG1 and WG2 produced
documents and recommendations that were circulated internally in the JU to the
Project Officers and to the ITDs; whereas WG3 will be launched and implemented
in 2012.

The STAB provided recommendations on the
Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) management, and the environmental forecast
criteria definition. Two STAB members, in average, participated in each ITD
annual review, according to their expertise area. They will keep the same focus
for the following years. The STAB was also requested to check the quality of
technical deliverables, by sampling; this action is in progress and will be
continued in 2012.

1.2.5.4.  JU
General Forum

On 27 September 2011, the CS JU's
stakeholders gathered for the second General Forum. It provided information
to the participants in the initiative about its activities and the progress of
the Clean Sky JU. This event gathered more than 100 participants.

The Forum also put forward recommendations
to the JU on managerial and operational items. Four separate working groups
were launched, concerning:

-
Experience of partners related to their role in
the ITD work programs;

-
Cross-ITDs relationship: from members' feed back
towards a better efficiency;

-
Role and involvement of SMEs (including Members
within clusters);

-
Role and involvement of Universities and
research centres.

1.2.6.     Outcome of 1st interim evaluation

Two Interim Assessments of the Clean Sky JU
are planned in the Council Regulation, the first one in 2010, the second in
2013.

This first assessment was performed in due
time (4th Quarter 2010), by a Panel of six members designated by the European
Commission. The report was delivered to the European Commission and the JU in
January 2011. From this date, the Joint Undertaking has been implementing the
actions related to the Review’s recommendations. The report, with the European
Commission’s comments, was published in September 2011[10].

The Panel finds the concept of the CSJU
appropriate for its objectives and recognises a number of achievements:

-
Setting up the CSJU as an entirely new Public
Private Partnership (PPP) organisation has been a significant success on its
own.

-
The initial ‘top-down’ work plan has been
complemented by a detailed ‘bottom-up’ work plan. The corresponding schedule
foresees achieving key demonstrator targets within the Clean Sky time frame.
Furthermore, the CS timing for demonstrators seems well-synchronized with
industrial deployment strategies.

-
The CSJU has been highly successful in
attracting a high level and wide participation from all EU key industries and a
large number of SMEs. CS has led to new collaborations and the participation of
new organisations is thus enhancing European integration.

-
The coordination with EC Framework Programme and
the SESAR Joint Undertaking appears to be organised in an effective manner.

-
However, significant delays as compared to the
initial plans have been accumulated because of difficulties in establishing the
CSJU internal procedures and regulations as well as building up the teams. In
particular, the definition and implementation of processes setting up and
running a PPP under the rules of a Community Body was highly challenging.

Further delays of technical nature have
been identified by the ‘bottom-up’ work plan in June 2010; for some
demonstrators those delays are in excess of 2 years. The Panel notes that the
slow start of the CSJU can to a great extent be imputed to the lack of
preparedness, both administrative and technical, when starting the Joint
Undertaking.

According to
the panel, the most important recommendations are the following:

1. Top priority
and prime objective of CS is to achieve demonstrator targets within the CS time
frame. The Panel recommends streamlining programme activities giving an
overriding priority to advanced technology demonstration. This implies
diverting some resources from fundamental technology development to advanced
technology demonstration.

2. Means to
actively recover delays and mitigate future delays should be implemented within
and across the six main activities of the programme.

3. Some areas of
CS are addressing operations, which are highly affected by particular interests
of stakeholder groups. An early and close interaction with airlines, air
navigation service providers, airports, etc. is recommended to ensure
successful deployment.

4. The envisaged
developments involve safety-critical systems and operations. Consequently,
certification issues need to be considered at early design and development
stages already.

5. In order to
facilitate the CSJU management process, the Panel recommends the Governing
Board to focus on strategic decisions and to increase the level of delegation
of routine management issues to the Executive Director (ED). The executive
power of the ED has to be strengthened towards managing all programme
activities.

6. The resources
required for integration and interface activities should be specifically
identified in each of the individual work plans. In addition, there is an
urgent need for a matrix of interconnected time schedules and deliverables.

7. A detailed
roadmap of technical progress should be established in order to compare achievements
against the plan. This roadmap should include key decision-making points and
technological milestones.

8. The role of
the Technology Evaluator (TE) in providing guidance to Integrated Technology
Demonstrators (ITDs) should be emphasized. Therefore, the TE should be given a
more pro-active responsibility in its interactions with ITDs. Current
limitation in interactions between TE and ITDs could be significantly mitigated
should demonstrator and TE activities be carried out beyond the current
deadline of end 2015.

9. In a
development programme like CS, the availability of a contingency budget is
necessary to cover unforeseen developments.

10. CS should improve its
visibility to the general public.

The Panel assesses the CSJU as an
ambitious European initiative with the potential to become a new model of a
public-private-partnership. The CSJU should be continued with special attention
towards adhering to the main objectives and the work plans.

All the recommendations, in particular the
above, have been addressed by actions which are monitored by the JU management.
In particular:

-
Focusing on the mainstream of Clean Sky, i.e.
the integrated demonstrators, is a permanent activity in the coordination
activity performed by the JU. This is also part of the annual reviews, to check
how the highest Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) are prioritized.

-
Keeping the schedule and achieving the
environmental targets are the two main objectives of the JU management, and of
the ITD coordination. The Quarterly Reports and the Development Plan, now well
in place, allow such a monitoring, in order to have an early alert capability.
Related key performance indicators on ITD level as well as for the management
of the JU have been developed and first results are reported for 2011. It has
to be noted that the delays mentioned in the Interim Assessment Report are
mostly coming from the initial, starting phase. With respect to the
rescheduling performed by mid-2010 and endorsed by the Governing Board through
the Development Plan, no significant delay is reported up to now. The link with
the market and the "end users" is basically ensured by the industrial
stakeholders; the Technology Evaluator assessments, from early 2012 on, will
allow for a wider communication on Clean Sky progress.

-
Certification issues are addressed, both through
working groups involving the industry and airworthiness Authorities, and
periodic JU-EASA coordination.

-
The Governing Board rules of procedures, as
stated in Chapter 8, have been adapted in order to allow the meetings to be
more and more focussed on strategic issues. The role of the Executive Director
has been well recognized and strengthened; in particular, the Management Manual
entered into full application in 2011. The interfaces between ITDs are being
clarified and a cross-check of inputs and outputs is a condition of the Grant
Agreements 2012 by the JU. More precise roadmaps have already been included in
the Development Plan and are also part of the Annual Reviews targets.

-
As described in the technical part of the
report, the TE first assessment will be available at the beginning of 2012. The
interactions with the ITDs have been subject to significant improvements during
this first process. As a matter of fact, the role of the TE will be mainly
focussed on providing an independent assessment of the progress towards the
environmental objectives, while its feedback to the ITDs in order to support
the down-selection of technologies will be more limited for timing reasons;
this is not considered as a major issue, given that the ITD tools allow for
making the right decisions. As recommended by the Report, it has been agreed to
extend the cycle of TE assessments to 2016.

-
No contingency margin is available as such; this
would be very difficult to implement, at this stage of the programme.
Nevertheless, such a margin will actually be provided, if needed, through the
priority given to high Technology Readiness Levels in order to achieve the
integration of the most mature technologies into the demonstrators.

1.2.7.     Main
communication activities

A communication and dissemination
strategy was adopted by the Governing Board in June 2010. An update was
adopted in December 2011. This strategy defines objectives, target audiences,
messages and tools and includes a more efficient communication to the general
public.

In order to inform widely potential
candidates about the calls for proposals launched during the year, the JU held
information sessions in Toulouse, Vienna, Lisbon, Dublin, Ankara and Warsaw.

The Clean Sky initiative was promoted at
different technical conferences, such as CEAS in Venice (Engineering
associations council) or ISABE (engines) in Stockholm. The two main events
were:

·
The Aerodays in Madrid (March 2011): organized
by the CDTI of Spain and the European Commission, this very important event
(more than 1000 participants) allowed Clean Sky to have two dedicated workshops
and to participate in a plenary session (Executive Director). Clean Sky was
also present in the related exhibition with a booth where mockups and videos
were displayed.

·
The Paris Air Show (June 2011): organised every
second year, is the biggest in the world. Clean Sky participated with its own
"chalet" and organized workshops on different technical areas each
day. A celebration of the 400th participant in Clean Sky, a German
SME, took place on this occasion. Members of the European Parliament, European
Commission and national officials, visitors from overseas, and many industrial
representatives, paid a visit to this chalet and had meetings with the JU staff
and ITD leaders as well.

Another
excellent opportunity to communicate about Clean Sky to the public at large was
offered by the Innovation Convention, held in Brussels on the 5 and 6
December 2011. This first edition of the Innovation Convention took place one
year after the adoption of the Innovation Union flagship initiative. This
conference brought together world leading experts in research and innovation to
share their views on building a global innovation economy. Following a call for
exhibitors open to the entire EU's Framework Programme for Research and the
EU's Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, a Clean Sky project
was amongst the happy few (only 48 projects were retained): the BLADE project,
as part of the Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft ITD, was selected for exhibition.

Clean Sky also participated in an event
called "Innovation in Action" in the European Parliament, in
October 2011; this one week event, co-organised by the 5 Joint Technology
Initiatives and sponsored by Maria de Graça Carvalho, included a common
exhibition and conferences in the Parliament. The Clean Sky conference was
sponsored by Vittorio Prodi, as a Chairman of the Sky and Space intergroup.

A totally new, dynamic and interactive
website[11]
was made available in April 2011 and fully operational for the Paris Air Show.
This website is now regularly updated. More information will be provided from
now on, about the ITDs achievements, and about the projects completed by the
Partners. In 2011 a set of factsheets on the ITDs characteristics and
objectives was as well uploaded on the web page in March for wide communication
purposes.

The quarterly Newsletter,
"Skyline", which was revamped in September 2010, was published on
time in March, June and December 2011. A target group of 3000 recipients were
regularly informed via e-news about the latest CS developments, and in
particular about the launch of the calls for proposals. An 'info@cleansky.eu'
mailbox answered regularly general information requests from the CS stakeholders.

Furthermore, CS issued 3 press releases
on 2011 crucial achievements:

-
Dassault Aviation evaluates
laminar designs in flight as part of Europe’s Clean Sky Research Programme
(January 2011)

-
Clean Sky celebrates its 400th
participant (June 2011)

-
Early achievements of the Joint
Technology Initiatives’ €10 billion R&D programme highlighted at the
European Parliament (October 2011)

During 2011 Clean Sky has been quoted for
14 times in articles, press releases and publication at European level.

Two other relevant activities, crosscutting
the areas of communication and relations with stakeholders, took place in 2011.

-
Clean Sky intended to reinforce participation
among the less active member States.  With this purpose, in June 2011 a
round table on Aeronautical Research in Central and Eastern Europe was
organized with the aim of exploring options to better involve in Clean Sky
countries from Central and Eastern Europe. Participation to the panel was
offered to representatives of leading "aeronautical countries" in the
region (Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Baltic area) as well as to
those participating in European Collaborative research. The Round Table was
very well attended by Member States representatives from the region.

-
The constant focus on the SMEs participation was
complemented by two interviews with small and medium size companies having
participated to the JTI's call for proposals. The first one was released in May
2011 to present a Belgium SME active in boosting innovation. Cenaero is
a private applied research centre providing to companies involved in a
technology innovation process high fidelity numerical simulation methods and
tools to invent and design more competitive products[12]. The
second one was published in June 2011 to celebrate the 400th participant to the
CS call for proposal. XRG Simulation GmbH is a SME located in Hamburg, Ingolstadt and Bremen and represented a cornerstone in CS implementation. It has
14 employees and is active in the energy system simulation (e.g. aircraft
systems, automotive systems, buildings, power plants, etc.) and related
simulation products[13].

1.2.8.     Implementation
of calls for proposals (CFPs) in 2011

2011 was the year of the evaluation of Call
7 - which was performed in January 2011, and the publication of three Calls for
Proposals: Call 8 (2011-01), Call 9 (2011-02) and Call 10 (2011-03). The CS JU
managed in total 159 topics, resulting in a total of 325 partners from 22
countries selected after call 10.

The present document shall provide detailed
information on these four calls (calls 7 to 10). Details about the Grant
Agreements signed in 2011 are provided in the last section on Grant
agreements/Project portfolio, with those for grants relating to calls 1 to 6.

The table
below gives an overview of the calls for proposals evaluated or launched
by the Clean Sky JU in 2011, which will be reviewed in the present document:

Call № || Reference || Publication date || Deadline for submission || Evaluation || Nr of topics || Nr of GAPs || Indicative budget [max funding] (M€) || Outcome of the call (M€)

7 || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05 || 24-09-2010 || 09-12-2010 || 17-21 Jan 2011 || 38 || 29 || 23.0 || 14.6

8 || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 10-02-2011 || 03-05-2011 || 23-27 May 2011 || 58 || 49 || 31.9 || 22.5

9 || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 28-04-2011 || 28-07-2011 || 19-23 Sep 2011 || 23 || 16 || 12.7 || 6.1

10 || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 19-07-2011 || 12-10-2011 || 14-18 Nov 2011 || 40 || 24 || 19.5 || 9.4

The table
below presents a general overview of the submitted and evaluated proposals, in
response to calls 7 to 10.

|| || Submitted proposals || evaluation results || Success rate (%)

Call indicative || || || Eligible proposals || || Above threshold || Selected for funding

No of topics || Submitted proposals || % of proposals retained

7 || SPI-JTI-CS-2010-05 || 38 || 71 || 67 || 94,37% || 45 || 29 || 64%

8 || SPI-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 58 || 127 || 119 || 93,70% || 84 || 49 || 58%

9 || SPI-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 23 || 62 || 59 || 95,16% || 32 || 16 || 50%

10 || SPI-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 40 || 62 || 60 || 96,77% || 35 || 24 || 68%

TOTAL || 159 || 322 || 305 || 95% || 196 || 118 || 60%

The average
response to the CSJU calls in 2011 was about 2 proposals per topic, i.e. more
than 320 proposals in total. The average failure rate of the topics increased
with respect to previous calls, especially in Call 10, up to a yearly average
of 25%, again due either to a lack of proposals submitted in a certain topic,
or to negative evaluation results of the proposals in a topic. A related
corrective series of actions is on-going to recover the highest success rate of
topics.

The figure
below shows the presence of SMEs among the winning
entities for the Calls evaluated or launched in 2011, in terms of number of
SMEs in winning consortia per ITD, to be compared with the total of 118 GAPs to
be signed in 2011.  For all calls for proposals (up to call 10), 37.1% of the
winners selected for funding by the Clean Sky JU were SMEs.

1.2.9.     Results
of calls for proposals (CFPs) launched between 2009 and in 2011

The
geographic distribution of winning organisations
(coordinator and participant) is presented in the figure below.

Considering
redresses, one redress per call was submitted in each call published in
2011. In all cases the Redress Committee judged the relevance of the complaint,
in one case proposing the re-evaluation of the proposals. In all cases, no
change occurred to the ranking list as resulting from the evaluation. The
figure below shows the positive trend of fewer redresses in Calls from 2010 to
2011, demonstrating the effectiveness and correctness of the evaluation
process.

1.2.10.   Success stories

BLADE (acronym for Breakthrough Laminar
Aircraft Demonstrator in Europe), which has been
selected to be exhibited during the first Innovation Convention, organised in
Brussels on the 5 and 6 December 2011. For the next generation aircraft, higher
laminar performance is considered to be one of the key elements to reduce air
resistance, increase overall performances and reduce CO² emissions. In the
SFWA, as results of the research activities, an Airbus A340-300 will be fitted
with new outer wing sections to demonstrate an entirely new designed natural
laminar flow wing. In the BLADE project, Aernnova has developed a monitoring
system that detects in real time damages and defects on such wings, reducing
manufacturing and maintenance costs.

A second success story is the TaxiBot
"Dispatch Towing Vehicle (DTV)"project, which won in 2011 the
Innovation Award at Inter Airport Europe in Munich. The DTV is a towbar-less
aircraft tractor dedicated to dispatch towing of single aisle aircrafts (e.g.
A320, B737), allowing the aircraft to stop the engines during taxiing in and
out. Even though the idea of dispatch towing has existed for decades, past
attempts using existing tractors - dedicated to push back and maintenance
towing - faced several problems. The DTV concept provides a comprehensive
answer to the main drawbacks of classical dispatch towing, protecting airplane
landing gears from excessive allowed fatigue limits at all times and allowing
the pilot to stay "in control".

A further ongoing significant project is CARING
(Contribution of Airlines for the Reduction of Industry Nuisances and Gases), which
is the only Clean Sky project involving airlines. Launched at the beginning of
2010, it aimed at analysing how current and future environmental regulations
may affect the economics of airlines. It also examined how airlines can best
adapt to these changes. CARING was successfully completed after a 24 months
duration, in December 2011.

1.3.        Programme
implementation

The CS JU supports research activities
carried out by the non-EC members of Clean Sky and by partners selected
following open and competitive Calls for Proposals, independent evaluations and
negotiations leading to the conclusion of partners Grant Agreements.

Clean Sky aims to create a radically
innovative Air Transport System based on the integration of advanced
technologies and full scale demonstrators, with the target of reducing the
environmental impact of air transport through reduction of noise and gaseous
emissions, and improvement of the fuel economy of aircraft. The activity covers
all main flying segments of the Air Transport System and the associated
underlying technologies identified in the Strategic Research Agenda for
Aeronautics developed by the Aeronautics Technology Platform ACARE.

As already mentioned in the introduction to
the JU, Clean Sky is built upon 6 different technical areas called Integrated
Technology Demonstrators (ITDs), which perform preliminary studies and
down-selection of work, followed by large-scale demonstrations on ground or
in-flight, in order to bring innovative technologies to a maturity level where
they can be applicable to new generation "green aircraft". Multiple
links for coherence and data exchange will be ensured between the various ITDs.

The Technology
Evaluator will be the first available European complete integrated tool
delivering direct relationship between advanced technologies, still under
development, and high-level local or global environment impact. It considers
inputs from both inside and outside the "Clean Sky" perimeter to
deliver environmental metrics and the levels of aircraft, airport and aircraft
fleet level.

As aircraft
fuel economy is also influenced by flight trajectory management strategy, Clean
Sky has established links with the SESAR Joint Undertaking which
investigates Air Traffic Management (ATM) technologies in line with the
"Single Sky" initiative of the Commission. These links are
established via the Technology Evaluator, as well as via the SGO ITD that
develops the avionics equipment interfacing with ATM, and via management
meetings involving the relevant staff members of the two JUs, up to the two
Executive Directors.

1.3.1.     Grant
agreements with members

The majority of the work inside the Clean
Sky JU is carried out by its industrial members under the form of grant
agreements with named beneficiaries. According to Article 13 (2) (a) of
Council Regulation (EC) 71/2008 setting up the Joint Undertaking, an amount of
up to € 400 million shall be allocated to the ITD leaders and up to €
200 million – to the associate members. In turn, the ITD leaders and associates
engage to contribute resources at least matching the EU contribution.

The Clean Sky JU signed the first seven
grant agreements with its members (referred to as "GAM") in 2008:
- one for each of the six ITDs, - a supplementary one for the activities of the
Technology Evaluator.

These grant agreements will remain in force
for the whole duration of Clean Sky, until 31 December 2017. Each year, an
amendment is signed in order to update the annual description of work with the
corresponding JU financial contribution. No new named beneficiaries joined the
CS JU in 2011. The commitments amounted to €17 M€ in 2008; €70.6 M in 2009, €75.7
M in 2010 and €103.16 M in 2011.

The Steering Committees responsible
for technical decisions taken within each ITD and the TE met regularly in the
course of 2011.

1.3.2.     Description of the 'Integrated Technology Demonstrators'
(ITD) activities

The detailed progress of activities of each
ITD in 2011 is presented in annex 1.

1.4.        Call
implementation

1.4.1.     Grant
agreements with partners

According to Article 13 (2) (b) of Council
Regulation (EC) 71/2008 setting up the Joint Undertaking, the remaining 25%
of the EU funding to the Clean Sky JU (amounting to at least € 200 million)
are allocated to partners selected via open and competitive calls for
proposals.

They serve the dual purpose of widening the
participation in Clean Sky to other organisations and to identify R&D
performers to take part in the mainstream activities of Clean Sky. Partners
selected via calls for proposals are funded in compliance with the upper
funding limits set in the FP7 Rules for Participation.

According to the Clean Sky's Rules for
Participation and Rules for Submission of Proposals and the Related Evaluation,
Selection and Award procedures any legal entity established in an EU Member
State or in a country associated to the FP7 may participate in a CS project. A
proposal may involve one or several participants. Examples of potential
participants are research institutes, universities, industry, including SMEs,
and end-users.

1.4.2.     Topic
definition

The call topics are proposed by each
ITD Steering Committee and reviewed by the CS JU Executive Office and by the
European Commission. The calls are broadly published by all suitable channels,
including the Clean Sky's website. According to the requirements of the ITD and
the work package, a single stage submission and evaluation process
is followed. Once a proposal is submitted, eligibility check and independent
evaluations take place.

1.4.3.     Evaluation
process

The evaluation of proposals is performed on
the basis of the following principles:

·
Excellence of projects selected;

·
Transparency of decisions;

·
Fairness and impartiality of evaluations;

·
Confidentiality of all information;

·
Efficiency and speed of evaluation;

·
Compliance with ethical and security principles.

The evaluation of proposals is carried out
by a panel of experts comprising two internal experts from the
ITD responsible for the call and two external experts in an open and
transparent competitive procedure. Topic managers representing the ITD leaders,
as well as Clean Sky staff members also take part in the evaluation process.
The presence of independent observers aims to verify and guarantee that
the above-mentioned rules and principles are followed.

The
evaluations are performed against six pre-determined evaluation criteria. For each criterion, a score is given on a scale from 0
(proposal fails to address the criterion) to 5 (proposal addresses all aspects
of the criterion). All factors have equal weight. For a proposal to be
considered for funding, it needs to pass the following thresholds: a
minimum 3/5 for each of the 6 criteria and a minimum 20/30 total score.

№ || Evaluation criterion || Score || Weight || Threshold

1. || Technical excellence || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

2. || Innovative character || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

3. || Compliance with the call for proposals specification and timetable (relevance), || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

4. || Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management and implementation capabilities and track record || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

5. || Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment) || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

6. || Contribution to European competitiveness || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

|| Total score: || || || 20/30

The
evaluation process consists of several steps:

1.
Briefings of the experts to explain the process
and the rules for evaluation;

2.
Eligibility Review Committee to ensure a
coherent legal interpretation of all cases and equal treatment of participants;

3.
Individual remote evaluation, the results of
which are included in an individual evaluation report;

4.
Consensus meeting for each proposal, the results
of which are included in a consensus evaluation report;

5.
Topic meeting to examine and compare the various
consensus reports, the results of which are included in an evaluation
summary report. A topic report is also established with a
list of ranked proposals above thresholds, a list of proposals failing one or
more thresholds and a list of ineligible proposals, if any.

If the proposal passes the thresholds and
is selected for funding, it enters into the next phase – the negotiation. The
process is concluded by the signature of a contract, called Grant Agreement
with Partners (referred to as "GAP").

It is important to note that the calls for
proposals launched by the Clean Sky JU differ from FP7 collaborative research
calls and calls launched by the other JTI JUs.

-
The content of the activities is much more focused,
i.e. there are topics, rather than research themes, with a limited duration
and specific targeted results expected at higher technology readiness
levels.

-
The calls supplement the technical
competences of the Clean Sky's members by performing highly specific
activities, which, on the other hand, have to "slot in" with the
overall technical work plan of the CS JU. For this reason, only one contract
is awarded for each of the topics that are published, and compliance with the
technical description is imperative. However, due to the very specific nature,
it is possible to participate in a call as a single entity and not in a
consortium, as allowed by the Clean Sky's Rules for Submission of Proposals.

-
Another difference from collaborative research
calls is that the budget is defined by the topic value, and not by the
maximum funding, which allows a wider participation from all types of
entities, independently from the actual eligibility for funding.

1.5.        Call
7 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05

1.5.1.     Summary
information

Call Identifier || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05

Publication date || 24 September 2010

Deadline || 9 December 2010

Evaluation || 17-21 January 2011

Negotiation Kick-off || 24 February 2011

Indicative Total budget (in €) || € 30,529 millions

EU contribution after evaluation || € 14,583 millions

In-kind contribution after evaluation || € 8,867 millions

Number of topics || 38

Reference to call topics || http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05

The Clean Sky
JU published its seventh call for proposals on 24 September 2010. The call was open for 38 topics[14]
covering activities within all ITDs, without the Technology Evaluator (TE). The 38 open topics were grouped in 15 areas, further re-grouped
under the six ITDs as shown in the table below. The total indicative budget
of the call was set to € 30,529,000, of which the EU contribution
could be up to € 22,896,750 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget
indicated).

Identification || ITD-Area-Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (€) || Maximum funding (€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky – Eco-Design || 11 || 5,230,000 || 3,922,500

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft || 2 || 620,000 || 465,000

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 7 || 11,580,000 || 8,685,000

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines || 4 || 5,400,000 || 4,050,000

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 8 || 3,999,000 || 2,999,250

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations || 6 || 3,700,000 || 2,775,000

TOTAL (M€) || 38 || 30,529,000 || 22,896,750

1.5.2.     Analysis of proposals submitted

71
proposals involving applicants from 17 countries
were received. Out of those 71 proposals, 67 were considered eligible
for evaluation. They were evaluated by 84 independent experts. The table
below presents the distribution of participants in the submitted proposals:

Type of participant[15] || Nr of participants in the Proposals || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

REC || 19 || 8 || 42%

HSE || 29 || 13 || 45%

SME || 51 || 18 || 35%

PRC || 26 || 10 || 38%

PUB[16] || 0 || 0 || 0

OTH || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 125 || 49 || 39%

All calls'
applicants distributed per country are given in the figure below:

Evaluation results

The on-site
evaluation of the proposals followed the established methodology. It was
preceded by individual remote evaluations. To ensure high degree of
transparency, the CS JU invited one independent observer to verify if the evaluations have been done according to the set
evaluation guidelines and rules. Out of the 67 eligible proposals, 45 passed
the thresholds, while 22 failed one or more thresholds. In terms of
the topics failed (because not answered or with no successful proposal
selected), this is the situation per ITD:

ITD || Unanswered || Failed

ECO || Eco-Design || 1 || 2

GRA || Green Regional Aircraft || 0 || 1

GRC || Green Rotorcraft || 1 || 0

SFW || Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 0 || 0

SAGE || Sustainable and Green Engines || 2 || 1

SGO || Systems for Green Operations || 1 || 0

Total || || 5 || 4

This call shows a
reduced number of proposals submitted (it used to be an average of 2.5 per
topic, whereas now it is less than 2) and a higher failure rate topic per topic
(it is now about 25% and used to be 14%).

The evaluation results, after processing all submitted
proposals, are presented in the table below.

|| Submitted proposal || Evaluation results

ITD/Area || || Eligible proposals || || Above threshold || Proposals selected for funding || Reserve list

Submitted proposals || % of retained

SFWA || 16 || 16 || 100.00% || 13 || 81.25% || 8 || 50.00% || 5

GRA || 6 || 5 || 83.33% || 2 || 40.00% || 1 || 20.00% || 1

GRC || 16 || 15 || 93.75% || 8 || 53.33% || 6 || 40.00% || 2

SAGE || 2 || 2 || 100.00% || 1 || 50.00% || 1 || 50.00% || 0

SGO || 9 || 9 || 100.00% || 6 || 66.67% || 5 || 55.56% || 1

ED || 22 || 20 || 90.91% || 15 || 75.00% || 8 || 40.00% || 7

Total || 71 || 67 || 79,8% || 45 || 61,04% || 29 || 42,59% || 16

The 29
proposals proposed for funding accounted for 49 participations from 13
European countries. Of those, 13 (27%) came from academia, 10
(20%) represented the industry and 8 (16%) were research
institutions. The SME participation was 37% (18 companies
were SMEs), requesting a total funding of € 4,930,913 (33.81% of the
total requested funding).

-
The figure below shows the distribution of the
49 participations by country and by type.

-
The geographical distribution of the proposals
selected for funding is shown in the graph below. Germany and France are taking the leading position with 9 proposals, followed by Spain, Italy and Greece.

1.5.3.     Grant
agreements signed

CS JU call 7 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05). || Number || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || 26 || € 13,750,443 || € 8,083,014 || € 21,833,457

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || 3 || € 1,202,694 || € 651,999 || € 1,854,693

TOTAL || 29 || € 14,953,137 || € 8,735,013 || € 23,688,150

The list of GAP
signed or in negotiation for this call 7 is provided with further details in
annex 3.

1.6.        Call
8 SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01

1.6.1.     Summary
information

Call Identifier || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01

Publication date || 10 February 2011

Deadline || 3 May 2011

Evaluation || 23-27 May 2011

Negotiation Kick-off || 1 July 2011

Indicative total budget (in €) || € 42,490 millions

EU contribution after evaluation || € 21,730 millions

In-kind contribution after evaluation || € 13,286 millions

Number of topics || 58

Reference to call topics || http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=SP1-JTI-CS-2011-0158 topics

The Clean Sky JU published its eighth
call for proposals, open for 58 topics[17]
covering activities within all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator (TE). The topics were grouped in 18 areas, further re-grouped under the
six ITDs as shown in the table below. The total indicative budget of the
call was set to € 42.490.000, of which the EU contribution could
be up to € 31.867.500 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated).

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (€) || Maximum funding (€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky – Eco-Design || 12 || 6,410,000 || 4,807,500

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 6 || 1,330,000 || 997,500

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 5 || 3,150,000 || 2,362,500

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 18 || 20,000,000 || 15,000,000

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 12 || 9,900,000 || 7,425,000

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 5 || 1,700,000 || 1,275,000

TOTAL (€) || 58 || 42,490,000 || 31,867,500

1.6.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

127
proposals were submitted in response to the 58 open
topics addressed by the present call, involving applicants from 17 countries.
8 were found to be ineligible and the remaining 119 eligible proposals
were evaluated by 129 independent experts. The table below presents the
distribution of participants in the submitted proposals:

Type participant[18] || Nr of participants in the Proposals || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

REC || 53 || 23 || 43%

HSE || 49 || 25 || 51%

SME || 86 || 37 || 43%

PRC || 54 || 30 || 56%

PUB || 0 || 0 || 0

OTH || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 242 || 115 || 48%

An overview of the geographical
distribution of the applicants (coordinator and participants) is given in the
figure below:

1.6.3.     Evaluation
results

The on-site
evaluation of the proposals followed the established methodology. It was
preceded by individual remote evaluations. To ensure high degree of
transparency, the CS JU invited one independent observer to verify if the evaluations were done according to the set
evaluation guidelines and rules. Out of the 119 eligible proposals, 84
passed the thresholds, while 35 failed one or more thresholds. In
terms of the topics failed (because not answered or with no successful proposal
selected), the final situation of successful topics vs. published ones was as
follows:

ITD || Unanswered || Failed

ECO || Eco-Design || 0 || 0

GRA || Green Regional Aircraft || 1 || 0

GRC || Green Rotorcraft || 2 || 0

SFW || Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 1 || 0

SAGE || Sustainable and Green Engines || 2 || 1

SGO || Systems for Green Operations || 0 || 2

Total || || 6 || 3

The evaluation results, after processing all submitted
proposals, are presented in the table below:

|| Submitted proposal || Evaluation results

ITD/Area || || Eligible proposals || || Above threshold || Proposals selected for funding || Reserve list

Submitted proposals || % of retained

SFWA || 21 || 20 || 95.24% || 17 || 85.00% || 11 || 55.00% || 6

GRA || 23 || 22 || 95.65% || 14 || 63.64% || 5 || 22.73% || 9

GRC || 8 || 8 || 100.00% || 6 || 75.00% || 3 || 37.50% || 3

SAGE || 32 || 32 || 100.00% || 20 || 62.50% || 15 || 46.88% || 5

SGO || 10 || 7 || 70.00% || 4 || 57.14% || 3 || 42.86% || 1

ED || 33 || 30 || 90.91% || 23 || 76.67% || 12 || 40.00% || 11

Total || 127 || 119 || 91.97% || 84 || 69.99% || 49 || 40.83% || 35

The 49
proposals proposed for funding accounted for 115 participations from
16 European countries. Of those, 25 (22%) came from academia,
30 (26%) represented the industry and 23 (20%) were research
institutions. The SME participation was 32% (37 companies
were SMEs), requesting a total funding of € 6,858,972 (31.56% of the
total requested funding).

-
Below you may find the distribution of the 115 participations
by country and by type.

The geographical distribution of the proposals selected for funding is
shown in the graph below. The United Kingdom is taking the leading position
with 9 proposals, followed by the Italy, France and Spain.

1.6.4.     Grant
agreements signed

Due to the
timing of this call, the negotiation of GAPs was completed at the end of the
year; as a consequence, few GAPs were finalised in 2011.

CS JU call 8 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01) || Number || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || 13 || € 3,699,630 || € 2,187,913 || € 5,887,543

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || 36 || € 18,835,261 || € 10,366,873 || € 29,202,134

TOTAL || 49 || € 22,534,891 || € 12,554,786 || € 35,089,677

The list of GAP
signed or in negotiation for this call 8 is provided with further details in
annex 5.

1.7.        Call
9 SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02

1.7.1.     Summary
information

Call Identifier || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02

Publication date || 28 April 2011

Deadline || 28 July 2011

Evaluation || 19-23 September 2011

Negotiation Kick-off || 27 October 2011

Indicative Total budget (in €) || € 16,945 millions

EU contribution after evaluation || € 6,129 millions

In-kind contribution after evaluation || € 3,498 millions

Number of topics || 23

Reference to call topics || http://www.cleansky.eu/content/procurements/9th-call-proposals23 topics

The Clean Sky JU published its ninth
call for proposals, open for 23 topics [19]grouped in 12 areas, further grouped under the six ITDs as shown in
the table below. The total indicative budget of
the call was set to € 16,945,000, of which the EU contribution
could be up to € 12,708,750 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget
indicated).

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (€) || Maximum funding (€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky - EcoDesign || 6 || 1,530,000 || 1,147,500

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 3 || 1,835,000 || 1,376,250

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 3 || 1,230,000 || 922,500

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 3 || 4,300,000 || 3,225,000

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 6 || 7,200,000 || 5,400,000

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 2 || 850,000 || 637,500

TOTAL (€) || 23 || 16,945,000 || 12,708,750

1.7.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

62
proposals were submitted in response to the 23 open
topics addressed by the present call, involving applicants from 17countries.
3 of them were found to be ineligible, and the remaining 59 eligible
proposals were evaluated by 62 independent experts. The table below
presents the distribution of participants in the submitted proposals:

Type participant[20] || Nr of participants in the Proposals || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

REC || 26 || 5 || 19%

HSE || 29 || 5 || 17%

SME || 49 || 9 || 18%

PRC || 12 || 5 || 42%

PUB || 0 || 0 || 0

OTH || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 116 || 24 || 21%

Geographical distribution of the
applicants is given in the figure below:

1.7.3.     Evaluation
results

The evaluation of the proposals followed
the established methodology. To ensure high degree of transparency, the CS JU
invited one independent observer to verify if
the evaluations were done according to the set evaluation guidelines and rules.
Out of the 59 eligible proposals, 32 passed the thresholds, while 27
failed one or more thresholds.

In terms of
the topics failed (because not answered or with no successful proposal
selected), the final situation of successful topics vs. published ones was as
follows:

ITD || Unanswered || Failed

ECO || Eco-Design || 1 || 0

GRA || Green Regional Aircraft || 1 || 0

GRC || Green Rotorcraft || 0 || 2

SFW || Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 0 || 0

SAGE || Sustainable and Green Engines || 0 || 2

SGO || Systems for Green Operations || 1 || 0

Total || || 3 || 4

The
evaluation results, after processing all submitted proposals, are presented in
the table below:

|| Submitted proposal || Evaluation results

ITD/Area || || Eligible proposals || || Above threshold || Proposals selected for funding || Reserve list

Submitted proposals || % of retained

SFWA || 14 || 13 || 92.86% || 11 || 84.62% || 5 || 38.46% || 6

GRA || 7 || 7 || 100.00% || 3 || 42.86% || 2 || 28.57% || 1

GRC || 7 || 7 || 100.00% || 5 || 71.43% || 3 || 42.86% || 2

SAGE || 5 || 5 || 100.00% || 1 || 20.00% || 1 || 20.00% || 0

SGO || 2 || 1 || 50.00% || 0 || 0.00% || 0 || 0.00% || 0

ED || 27 || 26 || 96.30% || 12 || 46.15% || 5 || 19.23% || 7

Total || 62 || 59 || 89.86% || 32 || 44.18% || 16 || 24.85% || 16

The 16
proposals proposed for funding accounted for 24 participations from 11
European countries. Of those, 5 (21%) came from academia, 5 (21%)
represented the industry and 5 (21%) were research
institutions. The SME participation was 38% (9 companies were
SMEs), requesting a total funding of € 1,195,138 (19.50% of the total
requested funding).

-
Below you may find the distribution of the 24 participations
by country and by type.

-
The geographical distribution of the proposals
selected for funding is shown in the graph below. France is taking the leading position with 4 proposals, followed by Germany and Spain:

1.7.4.     Grant
agreements signed

CS JU call 9 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02) || Number || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || 16 || € 6,128,781 || € 3,497,588 || € 9,626,369

TOTAL || 16 || € 6,128,781 || € 3,497,588 || € 9,626,369

Due to the timing of this call, no
negotiation of GAPs was completed at the end of the year; as a consequence,
all 16 GAPs will be finalised in 2012. The list of GAP signed or in negotiation
for this call 8 is provided with further details in annex 7.

1.8.        Call
10 SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03

1.8.1.     Summary
information

Call Identifier || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03

Publication date || 19 July 2011

Deadline || 12 October 2011

Evaluation || 14-18 November 2011

Negotiation Kick-off || 12 January 2012

Indicative Total budget (in €) || € 26,197 millions

EU contribution after evaluation || € 9,354 millions

In-kind contribution after evaluation || € 4,109 millions

Number of topics || 40

Reference to call topics || http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=SP1-JTI-CS-2011-0340topics

The Clean Sky JU published its tenth
call for proposals open for 40 topics[21]
covering activities within all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator (TE). The 40 open topics were grouped in 13 areas, further re-grouped
under the six ITDs as shown in the table below. The total indicative budget
of the call was set to € 26,197,000, of which the EU contribution
could be up to € 19,647,750 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget
indicated).

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (K€) || Maximum funding (K€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky - EcoDesign || 10 || 2,735 || 2051.25

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 8 || 3,400 || 2,550

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 3 || 1,322 || 991.5

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 4 || 7,400 || 5,550

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 5 || 5,650 || 4,237.5.

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 10 || 5,690 || 4,267.5.

TOTAL (K€) || 40 || 26,197 || 19,647.75

1.8.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

62
proposals were submitted in response to the 40 open
topics addressed by the present call, involving applicants from 17 countries.
2 were found to be ineligible and the remaining 60 eligible proposals
were evaluated by 75 independent experts. The table below presents the
distribution of participants in the submitted proposals:

Type participant[22] || Nr of participants in the Proposals || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

REC || 24 || 7 || 29%

HSE || 22 || 11 || 50%

SMEs || 53 || 24 || 45%

PRC || 18 || 8 || 44%

PUB || 0 || 0 || 0

OTH || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 117 || 50 || 43%

Geographical distribution of the
applicants is given in the figure below:

1.8.3.     Evaluation
results

The on-site evaluation of the proposals followed
the established methodology. It was preceded by individual remote evaluations.
To ensure high degree of transparency, the CS JU invited one independent
observer to verify if the evaluations have been done according to the set
evaluation guidelines and rules.

In terms of
the topics failed (because not answered or with no successful proposal
selected), the final situation of successful topics vs. published ones was as
follows:

ITD || unanswered || failed

ECO || Eco-Design || 4 || 1

GRA || Green Regional Aircraft || 1 || 1

GRC || Green Rotorcraft || 1 || 0

SFW || Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 2 || 1

SGE || Sustainable and Green Engines || 0 || 1

SGO || Systems for Green Operations || 2 || 2

Total || || 10 || 6

The
evaluation results, after processing all submitted proposals, are presented in
the table below:

|| Submitted proposal || Evaluation results

ITD/Area || || Eligible proposals || || Above threshold || Proposals selected for funding || Reserve list

Submitted proposals || % of retained

SFWA || 8 || 8 || 100.00% || 2 || 25.00% || 2 || 25.00% || 0

GRA || 19 || 18 || 94.74% || 11 || 61.11% || 6 || 33.33% || 5

GRC || 4 || 4 || 100.00% || 3 || 75.00% || 2 || 50.00% || 1

SAGE || 4 || 4 || 100.00% || 3 || 75.00% || 3 || 75.00% || 0

SGO || 14 || 13 || 92.86% || 8 || 61.54% || 6 || 46.15% || 2

ED || 13 || 13 || 100.00% || 8 || 61.54% || 5 || 38.46% || 3

Total || 62 || 60 || 97.93% || 35 || 59.86% || 24 || 44.66% || 11

The 24
proposals proposed for funding accounted for 50 participations from 12
countries. Of those, 11 (22%) came from academia, 8 (16%) represented
the industry and 7 (14%) were research institutions. The SME
participation was 48% (24 companies were SMEs), requesting a total
funding of € 4,225,949 (45.15% of the total requested funding).

-
Below you may find the geographical distribution
of the 50 participations by country and by type.

-
The geographical distribution of the proposals
selected for funding is shown in the graph below. Spain is taking on the lead with 6 winning proposals, followed by Italy, United Kingdom, Sweden and Belgium.

1.8.4.     Grant
agreements signed

Due to the
timing of this call, no negotiation of GAPs was completed at the end of
the year; as a consequence, all 24 GAPs will be finalised in 2012.

 CS JU call 10 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || Number || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || 24 || € 9,353,821 || € 4,108,737 || € 13,462,558

TOTAL || 24 || € 4,108,737 || € 13,462,558 || € 9,353,821

The list of GAP
signed or in negotiation for this call 10 is provided with further details in
annex 9.

1.9.        Grant
agreements/project portfolio

1.9.1.     Grant
agreements signed (commitment amounts) for calls
launched in previous years

Call number || Number || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 1 || € 138,900 || € 50,700 || € 189,600

SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 || 5 || € 2,660,745 || € 890,095 || € 3,550,840

SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 31 || € 7,119,533 || € 3,556,189 || € 10,675,722

SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02 || 4 || € 3,279,920 || € 2,579,920 || € 5,859,840

SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03 || 21 || € 6,133,766 || € 2,510,329 || € 8,644,095

SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04 || 18 || € 7,564,532 || € 4,404,369 || € 11,968,901

TOTAL || 80 || € 26,897,396 || € 14,022,607 || € 40,888,998

80 GAPs relating
to Calls 1 to 6 were signed in 2011. The complete list of grants signed is
provided per call with further details in annex 10.

1.9.2.     Grant
agreements for which activities have ended and/or final results are available

Activities related to 7 grant agreements
have already ended in 2011. They were all signed under the call
SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01. The total contribution on the projects (CS JU and in kind) was
on a wide range, varying from € 49,860 to € 398,388. The complete list is
provided with further details in annex 11.

2.           Progress
achieved by the IMI JU

2.1.        Introduction
to the IMI JU

The Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint
Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "IMI") has been established
by Council Regulation (EC) 73/2008 of 20 December 2007 as a public-private
partnership between the pharmaceutical industry, represented by the European
Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)[23], and the
European Union, represented by the European Commission.

The IMI JU has been set up for a period up
to 31 December 2017 with the main objectives to build a collaborative
eco-system for pharmaceutical R&D in Europe[24] and to speed
up the development of more effective and safer medicines for patients. In
achieving this, IMI creates large-scale networks of innovation in
pharmaceutical research. Joining forces in the IMI research and training
projects, leading pharmaceutical companies and SMEs, academia, regulatory
agencies and patients' organisations cooperate with each other to tackle the
major challenges in drug development and to improve people's health. This
brings up socio-economic benefits to European citizens and society and
increases the competitiveness of the European pharmaceutical industry.

The objectives of the IMI JU are achieved
through coordination of research activities that pool resources from public and
private sectors. These activities are carried out by the members of EFPIA
directly, and by partners selected through calls for proposals.

2.1.1.     Budget

The maximum Union contribution to the IMI
Joint Undertaking covering running costs and research activities shall be €1
billion. The contribution is paid from the appropriation in the general budget
of the European Union allocated to the ‘Health’ theme of the Specific Programme
"Cooperation" implementing the Seventh Framework Programme.

EFPIA provides monetary contribution to the
IMI JU running costs, in an amount equal to the contribution of the Union. The pharmaceutical companies' members of EFPIA jointly fund the IMI research
activities through contributions in kind at least equal to the financial
contribution of the Union.

2.1.2.     Governing
structure

2.2.        Outline
of the main activities and achievements in 2011

2011 was the
second full year of autonomous operation for the Innovative Medicines
Initiative Joint Undertaking (IMI), a year marked by consolidating its operations
and structures and making further significant developments in establishing
itself as a new model for drug development based on pre-competitive research
and open collaboration, in line with the vision of its Founding Members.

The revised
IMI grant agreement has been approved in November 2011. It improves the
rules in order to better accommodate the expectations of both public and
private partners in the collaborative projects. The new rules ensure in a
flexible way that the public funds are well spent, while the industrial
partners can optimize their commitment in the IMI projects using their usual
accounting principles.

Several operational
procedures have been simplified and streamlined in order to reduce the
administrative burden for consortium partners, to shorten the time interval
between the launch of the Calls for proposals and the initiation of the
projects, and to improve the budget execution.

IMI has learnt
from the experiences of the scientific teams in the 23 on-going IMI
projects. By responding to their feedback, IMI reinforces its
commitment to radically change the ecosystem for pharmaceutical research. IMI
is now even better equipped to engage public and private teams in collaborative
projects, offering them a unique and attractive partnership to accelerate drug
development in Europe.

2.2.1.     Organisation
of the team in IMI JU.

In total, the IMI JU could hire up to 34
staff (temporary and contract agents) in 2011, including one Executive
Director, 8 project officers, one Head of Administration & Finance Unit,
one Internal Audit Manager, one External Relations Manager, one Communication
and Event Manager and other.

Recruitments were conducted in 2011 in line
with the Staff Plan approved by the Governing Board and 12 new staff members
were integrated as follows. The "Science" pillar increased by 2
additional Scientific Project Officers and 1 Administrative Assistant. The
"Communication" pillar grew by 1 Communication Officer (events) and 1
External Relations and Communications Assistant.  The "Administration and
Finance" pillar also expanded, with the following new staff joining: 1
Financial Manager, 1 HR Officer, 1 Finance and Procurement Officer, 1
Administrative Assistant, 1 IT Manager, 1 Legal Officer and the Head of
Administrative and Finance. 32 positions were actually filled on 31/12/2011, in
line with the Staff Establishment Plan.

2.2.2.     Progress
in the implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda,

To reflect the
scientific advances and changes in industry, the IMI Scientific Committee initiated
the revision of the initial Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) in 2010.
After consultation with various stakeholders, the IMI Executive Office
finalised the revision of the SRA in 2011 in conjunction with both Founding
Members. The IMI SRA was revised in order to provide a new framework for the
preparation of future IMI Calls for proposals with a focus on large-scale,
game-changing projects. Two such topics were already introduced in the 4th Call
for proposals launched in 2011.

In order to
successfully tackle the challenges and opportunities created by recent major
progress in science, as well as the significant changes and transformations in
the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare systems in general, IMI has to
foster strategic initiatives focused on 'game-changing' ideas and areas where
the maximum number of companies can join forces.

Some of these areas had not been identified in the 2008
IMI SRA and are now included in the revised SRA, in which 8 new priorities have
been defined:

1.
Pharmacogenetics and Taxonomy of Human Diseases

2.
Rare Diseases and Stratified Therapies

3.
Systems Approaches in Drug Research

4.
‘Beyond High Throughput Screening‘-
Pharmacological Interactions at the Molecular Level

5.
API Technology (Drug Compound Development)

6.
Advanced Formulations

7.
Stem Cells for Drug Development and Toxicity
Screening

8.
Integration of Imaging Techniques into Drug
Research

2.2.3.     Major
decisions taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies

The Governing Board oversees the
implementation of IMI’s activities. As from April 2011, the European Commission
chaired the Governing Board for a one year mandate. The Governing Board met
three times during 2011 and held teleconferences for information purposes as
from May 2011 on a monthly basis, when no face-to-face meetings were held.

The main decisions taken in 2011 by the
Governing Board were:

·
Adoption of the Annual Implementation Plan for
2012, including the Annual Budget Plan for 2012 and the preliminary draft
budget for 2013

·
Adoption of the Annual Activity Report for 2010,
including the Annual Accounts for 2010,

·
Adoption of the Mission Charter of the Internal
Audit Service of the European Commission as regards IMI,

·
Adoption of the Internal Audit Strategy,

·
Adoption of the revised Strategic Research
Agenda, Adoption of the revised Grant agreement,

·
Adoption of Call 3 Stage 1 and 2 outcomes

·
Adoption of Call 4 topics, documents and Stage 1
outcomes,

·
Endorsement of Key Performance Indicators,

·
Endorsement of the Communication Strategy and
Action Plan,

·
Nomination of Scientific Committee members.

2.2.4.     Outcome
of 1st interim evaluation

The objective of this evaluation was to
assess the IMI JU against three criteria: quality, efficiency progress towards
the objectives set. The Commission invited a panel of independent experts to
perform the first interim evaluation. The experts reviewed evidence and
interviewed stakeholders.

The evaluation panel issued its report on
20 December 2010[25].
The response from the Commission to the first interim evaluation of IMI has
been published as a Staff Working Paper attached to the Partnering
Communication (COM(2011)572) from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions, which was published in September 2011. The staff working paper is
also published on the mentioned IMI website.

The overall appreciation of the panel for
the first interim evaluation of IMI is positive. The experts state that "through
the IMI JU Europe has succeeded in establishing a new business model between
public and private sectors" by bringing together the pharmaceutical
industry, academia, SMEs as well as regulatory authorities and patient
organisations. This cooperation "enables mutual learning and the
opportunity to build understanding of the respective rationales and approaches,
with benefits to all parties."

The experts consider that the
implementation of certain aspects of the IMI governance should be refined in
order to better align the different actors in IMI, namely the Governing Board,
the Scientific Committee, the Executive Office and the States Representatives
Group.

Based on the identified weaknesses in the
areas of governance structures, lack of proactive communication, not optimum
exploitation of the advisory potential of stakeholders such as the European
Medicines Agency and finally the lack of key performance indicators, the
evaluation panel has come up with seven recommendations to make IMI
better:

(1)
Continuously improve stakeholder involvement in
IMI supported research projects

(2)
Continuously ensure EFPIA and Commission
commitment

(3)
Ensure excellence and exploit new ways to
support IMI scientific objectives

(4)
Improve IMI communication

(5)
Reinforce and streamline decision making and
well-functioning processes

(6)
Ensure best use of IMI results and IMI
sustainability

(7)
Develop monitoring and evaluation processes.

2.2.5.     Main
communication activities

The IMI Communication Strategy and key
messages have been further developed, approved and implemented. As the
overviews below show, IMI has generated wider visibility and improved its image
vis-à-vis its stakeholders through various events, publications and other
communication actions.

In the second
half of 2011, communication focused on IMI Calls, achievements and on process
improvements. These topics have been widely covered by various target-oriented
websites and other publications and have generated a positive interest among
stakeholders and also outside the EU.

Key Events || Place Date (2011) || Target audience || Message || Comments

Press conference || Brussels 8 March || Press || Kick-off 2nd Call projects || 14 journalists attending, positive media coverage

IMI Stakeholder Forum At eHealth week || Budapest 12 May || All stakeholders, Central/Eastern Europe +  eHealth related audience || Achievements + announcement 4th Call || 250 participants in morning plenary session, afternoon’s  IMI session less attended

Open Info Day 4th Call & webinars || Brussels 17 June & beyond || Potential applicants + multipliers || Opportunities of the 4th Call || 215 participants representing all types of organisations including SMEs, academic and industry research, patient organisations and government & policy decision makers. Successful 4th Call launch, as indicated by the increased numbers of Expressions of Interest as compared to 3rd Call

IMI exhibition stand at FP7 Health Info Day || Brussels 9 June || Potential applicants + multipliers || Opportunities of the 4th Call || Visibility to large and interested audience

European Parliament session + exhibition || Brussels 4-6 Oct || Policy makers || Achievements of IMI || 60 participants in IMI session, positive feedbacks from attendees, dialog initiated with several MEPs

IMI session at EuroBiotech || Krakow 12-14 Oct || Potential applicants in Central/Eastern Europe || What is IMI  +  Opportunities of future IMI Calls || Visibility to ~500, 50 participants in IMI session

The
Communication Strategy of 2012 will further expand on these themes, in a more
in-depth and target-group oriented way.

2.2.6.     Success
stories

As successful
project, NEWMEDS should be mentioned. In the area of depression and
schizophrenia, the project NEWMEDS created new databases allowing the
collection and warehousing of large datasets. This led to the assembly of the
largest known repository of antipsychotic clinical trial data comprising 23,401
patients from the five leading pharmaceutical companies in this area.

2.3.        Call
implementation

Project participants are selected by IMI
through open and competitive calls for proposals following a two-stage
submission and evaluation process.

During the first stage (referred to also
as "Stage 1") the call for proposals is
announced. The interested parties from academia, SMEs, patient organisations,
regulatory agencies and large non-EFPIA companies are invited to form applicant
consortia and to submit their Expressions of Interest (EoIs) in response to the
call. A first peer review is then performed, resulting in a shortlist of
top-ranked consortia. The applicant consortia of the best ranked EoIs and the
EFPIA consortium already associated to the topic are invited to form a full
project consortium. They prepare a Full Project Proposal (FPP) containing a
draft project agreement, which shall be concluded by the members of the
consortium governing their relationship.

In the second stage of the call
(referred to as "Stage 2"), the FPPs are
evaluated during a second peer review based on the consistency with the
original EoI, scientific excellence, quality of the implementation plan and
potential impact. Ethical issues are also considered at this stage. Only FPPs
that have been favourably reviewed in Stage 2 of the call can be selected for
funding. The selected full project consortia are invited then to conclude a
grant agreement governing their relationship with the IMI JU.

.

The evaluation
criteria as listed in the table below are applied. Thresholds are set for some
or all of the criteria, such that any expressions of interest or full project
proposal failing to achieve the threshold scores will be rejected. A weight is
also applied to some criteria. The fourth criterion at this stage was only
assessing the existence of potential ethical issues to be reviewed in the next
stage of the call.

№ || Evaluation criterion || Score || Weight || Threshold

1. || Scientific and/or technological excellence || 0 to 5 || 4 || 15/20

2. || Excellence of partnership || 0 to 5 || 3 || 10/15

3. || Work plan outline || 0 to 5 || --- || ---

4. || Ethical issues || Yes/No || --- || ---

Implementation
during 2011:

The deadline for submitting Expressions of
Interest in the first stage of the 3rd Call for proposals (3rd
call for proposal, including seven topics, was launched on 22 October 2010) was
18 January 2011. IMI received 32 Expressions of Interest in
response to the 3rd Call; these were evaluated in February and March 2011.

Following the approval of the
recommendations of the evaluation panels by the Governing Board, and the
decision to launch the second stage of the Call process, the 7 first-ranked
EoIs were invited to prepare a Full Project Proposal together with the
pre-established EFPIA consortium and to submit the Full Project Proposals by 15
June 2011. The evaluation of the 7 FPPs was again conducted with the help of
external experts working initially remotely and then at a consensus panel
meeting. All 7 FPPs were recommended for funding by the experts and their
selection for funding was approved by the Governing Board.

The EFPIA in-kind contribution committed to
the 3rd Call projects is €70.8 million. The IMI JU contribution
committed to these projects is €111.8 million.

Grant agreements were signed in December
2011 for 5 projects. This enabled IMI to proceed with pre-financing
payments of €25,2 million to these projects. The pre-financings to the
remaining 2 projects from the IMI 3rd call have been executed at the
beginning of 2012 and will be reported on in next year's report.

The 4th Call for proposals
was published on 18 July 2011. The deadline for submitting Expressions of
Interest in this first stage of the Call was 18 October 2011. The
successful dissemination of information about the 4th Call to potential IMI
stakeholders translated into an increased number of Expressions of Interests
being submitted (86 EoIs were received).

Further to the evaluation of eligible
Expressions of Interest submitted in the first stage of the IMI JU 4th Call,
the IMI Governing Board has approved on 14 December 2011 the result of the 1st
stage and has decided to launch the second stage of the Call process.
Accordingly, the first-ranked Applicant Consortia from Stage 1 have been
invited to form Full Consortia with the corresponding EFPIA participants and to
prepare and submit Full Project Proposals to IMI JU by 13 March 2012. The call
consisted of seven topics[26],
already reflecting changes introduced in the revised Scientific Research
Agenda:

The EFPIA in-kind contribution committed to
the 4th Call for proposals is €105 million. Requested IMI JU
contribution totals €101.6 million.

Preparations were made during the latter
part of 2011 for further calls to be launched in 2012, which will be reported on in the 2012 report.

2.4.        IMI
-3rd Call - 2010

2.4.1.     Summary information

Call Identifier || IMI -3rd Call - 2010

Publication date || 22 October 2010

Deadline for submission of EoIs || 18 January 2011

Evaluation || February-March 2011

Results 1st stage approved by GB || 8 March 2011

Deadline for submission of FPPs || 15 June 2011

GA signed || December 2011

Indicative Total budget (in €) || € 114 million

EU contribution after evaluation || € 111,8 million

In-kind contribution after evaluation || € 70,8 million

Number of topics || 7

Reference to call topics || http://www.imi.europa.eu/content/3rd-call-2010

2.4.2.     Analysis of proposals submitted

Number of proposals submitted, by
topic:

32 Expressions of Interests (EoIs) were received from the 3rd Call for
Proposals, among which 30 were eligible. Key figures regarding submitted
EoIs are presented here below.

3rd Call topics title || Number of submitted EoIs || Number of eligible EoIs

1. Early prediction of drug-induced liver injury || 8 || 8

2. Immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals || 3 || 3

3. Immunosafety of vaccines || 3 || 3

4. Tuberculosis medicines research || 5 || 4

5. Translational endpoints in autism || 4 || 4

6. Personalised medicine in diabetes || 6 || 5

7. Patient awareness on pharmaceutical innovation || 3 || 3

Total || 32 || 30

Number of
participants in the submitted proposals:

The Expressions of Interest involved 438
applicants from 25 different countries.

Number of
participants by type, of which SMEs:

Type of participant || Number of participants in the Proposals (EoIs)

Public Bodies || -

Research organisations || -

Higher or secondary education (Academia) || 265

Private for profit (excl. education) || -

SMEs || 81

Patient organisations || 15

Others || 77

Total || 438

Participation distributed by type of
participant and by country is illustrated in the graphs below. Special emphasis
on the SME participation was put in the latest graph.

The evaluation of
the EoIs was conducted by panels of independent experts from Europe and the United States of America working initially remotely and then at a consensus meeting. 45
external experts worked in 7 panels (1 panel per topic)
moderated by IMI’s Scientific Officers, in accordance with the ’IMI Rules for
submission, evaluation and selection of Expressions of Interests and
proposals’. Key figures of the first-ranked EoIs are presented here after:

2.4.3.     Evaluation results

topic || topic title || Submitted EoIs || Eligible EoIs || Above threshold || Selected EoIs ||

1 || Early Prediction of drug-Induced Liver Injury || 8 || 8 || 100,00% || 5 || 62,50% || 1 || 12,50% ||

2 || Immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals || 3 || 3 || 100,00% || 2 || 66,67% || 1 || 33,30% ||

3 || Inmmunosafety of Vaccines || 3 || 3 || 100,00% || 2 || 66,67% || 1 || 33,30% ||

4 || Tuberculosis Medicines Research || 5 || 4 || 80,00% || 3 || 75,00% || 1 || 25,00% ||

5 || Translational endpoints in autism || 4 || 4 || 100,00% || 1 || 25,00% || 1 || 25,00% ||

6 || Personalised medicines in diabetes || 6 || 5 || 83,33% || 2 || 40,00% || 1 || 20,00% ||

7 || Patient awareness on pharmaceutical innovation || 3 || 3 || 100,00% || 1 || 33,33% || 1 ||  33,33% ||

TOTAL || 32 || 30 || 94,76% || 16 || 52,74% || 7 ||  23,3% ||

Success rate by type of
participant:

Type of participant || Nbr of participants in the Proposal (EoIs) || Nbr of participants in the funded Project (Non EFPIA) || Participants success rate

Public Bodies || - || - || -

Research organisations || - || - || -

Higher or secondary education (Academia) || 265 || 100 || 37,74%

Private for profit (excl. education) || - || - || -

SMEs || 81 || 17 || 20,99%

Patient Organisation || 15 || 6 || 40,00%

Other || 77 || 0 || 0,00%

Total || 438 || 123 || 28,08%

Number of participants in the proposals
selected for funding:

In total, 176
applicants participated in the full project consortia that submitted the 7
FPPs proposed for funding. Of them, EFPIA member companies accounted for 53
participations - representing 30%. 123 were the non-EFPIA participants, of
which 57% came from academia, 10% were SMEs and 3% – were patient
organisations. This distribution is shown in the table below:

The non-EFPIA participants in the
successful full project consortia originated from 19 countries – 15 EU
Member States, Switzerland, United States, Iceland and Israel. The UK, as in the previous call, had the highest participation rate – 28 participants,
followed by Germany and the Netherlands, respectively with 21 and 13
participants. The graph below illustrates in detail the participations per
country in the end of that stage of the call:

Requested
IMI JU contribution by 3rd Call consortia:

Project ID || Project Acronym || Requested  IMI JU contribution (EUR)

115336 || MIP-DILI || 15.335.538

115303 || ABIRISK || 18.170.400

115308 || BioVacSafe || 17.425.666

115337 || PreDICT-TB || 14.778.856

115300 || EU-AIMS || 19.467.207

115317 || DIRECT || 21.388.645

115334 || EUPATI || 5.250.000

Total || || 111.816.312

2.5.        IMI
-4th Call - 2011

2.5.1.     Summary information

Call Identifier || IMI -4rth Call - 2011

Publication date || 18 July 2011

Deadline for submission of EoIs || 18 October 2011

Evaluation || October – December 2011

Results of 1st stage approved by GB || 14 December 2011

Deadline for submission of FPPs || 13 March 2012

Indicative Total budget (in €) || € 105 millions

EU contribution after evaluation || Not yet available

In-kind contribution after evaluation || Not yet available

Number of topics || 7

Reference to call topics || http://www.imi.europa.eu/content/4th-call-2011

2.5.2.     Analysis of proposals submitted

Number of Expressions of Interests per
topic in the 4th Call:

The successful
dissemination of information about the 4th Call to potential IMI stakeholders
translated into an increased number of Expressions of Interests (EoIs) being
submitted in comparison to the 3rd Call. 86 EoIs were received, of which
80 were eligible. Key figures regarding submitted EoIs are presented
here after.

4th call topic title || Number of submitted EoIs || Number of eligible EoIs

1. A European Medical Information Framework (EMIF) of Patient level Data to support a wide range of medical research || Subtopic 1: Information Framework/ Knowledge Management Service Layer || 28 || 16 || 24 || 13

Subtopic 2: Metabolic complications of obesity || 8 || 7

Subtopic 3: Protective and precipitating markers for the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)-other dementias || 4 || 4

2. eTRIKS: European Translational Information & Knowledge Management Services || 5 || 4

3. Delivery and targeting mechanisms for biological macromolecules || 20 || 20

4. In vivo predictive biopharmaceutical tools for oral drug delivery || 2 || 2

5. Sustainable Chemistry - delivering medicines for the 21st century || 9 || 9

6. Human Induced Pluripotent Stem (hiPS) Cells for drug discovery and safety assessment || 11 || 10

7. Understanding and optimising binding kinetics in drug discovery || 11 || 11

Total || 86 || 80

Number of participants in the submitted
proposals:

These EoIs involved 939 participants
from 34 countries.

Number of participants by type, of which SMEs:

Type of participant || Nbr of participants in the proposals (EoIs)

Public Bodies || -

Research organisations || -

Higher or secondary education (Academia) || 736

Private for profit (excl. education) || -

SMEs || 182

Patient organisations || -

Others || 21

Total || 939

Participation distributed by type of
participant and by country is illustrated in the graphs below. Special emphasis
on the SME participation was put in the latest graph.

The evaluation
was conducted following the same principles as described for the 3rd Call for
proposals. Based on the independent observers’ recommendations made during the
previous Call, hearings (teleconferences) were organised with 4 of the 7
best-ranked EoIs following the remote evaluation. The two independent observers
invited to the evaluation process considered that the hearings significantly
improved the evaluation process.

Key figures of
the first-ranked EoIs by the evaluation panels are presented below:

Requested IMI
JU contribution by 4th Call consortia

2.5.3.     Evaluation results

topic || topic title || Submitted EoIs || Eligible EoIs || Above threshold || Selected EoIs ||

1 || A European Medical Information Framework (EMIF) of patient level data to support a wide range of medical research || 28 || 24 || 85,70% || 7 || 29,20% || 1 || 4,20% ||

2 || eTRIKS: European Translational Information& Knowledge Management Services || 5 || 4 || 80,00% || 3 || 75,00% || 1 || 25,00% ||

3 || Delivery and targeting mechanisms for biological macromolecules || 20 || 20 || 100,00% || 5 || 25,00% || 1 || 5,00% ||

4 || In vivo predictive biopharmaceutical tools for oral drug delivery || 2 || 2 || 100,00% || 2 || 100,00% || 1 || 50,00% ||

5 || Sustainable Chemistry - delivering medicines for 21st century || 9 || 9 || 100,00% || 5 || 55,60% || 1 || 11,10% ||

6 || Human Induced Pluripotent Stem (hiPS) cells for drug discovery and safety assessment || 11 || 10 || 90,90% || 4 || 40,00% || 1 || 10,00% ||

7 || Understanding and optimising binding kinetics in drug discovery || 11 || 11 || 100,00% || 4 || 36,40% || 1 || 9,10% ||

TOTAL || 86 || 80 || 93,00% || 30 ||  37,5% || 7 ||  8,8% ||

Success
rate by type of participant:

Type of participant || Nbr of participants in the proposals (EoIs) || Nbr of participants in funded Projects (Non EFPIA) || Participants success rate

Public Bodies || - || - || -

Research organisations || - || - || -

Higher or secondary education (Academia) || 736 || 108 || 14,67%

Private for profit (excl. education) || - || - || -

SMEs || 182 || 30 || 16,48%

Patient organisations || - || - || -

Others || 21 || 5 || 23,81%

Total || 939 || 143 || 15,23%

2.6.        Grant
agreements/project portfolio

After the 3rd
Call, the total IMI JU contribution amounts to €302 million matched by
the EFPIA in kind contribution of €267 million. Arising from the 3rd
call there is a deficit of committed EFPIA in kind contribution, which will be
recuperated in the coming calls.

2.6.1.     Grant
agreements signed (commitment amounts) or under
negotiation

|| IMI Call 2 - 2009 || Number || IMI JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Additional own resources (€) || Total contributions (€)

|| Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || 8 || € 80,740,072 || € 65,872,527 || € 25,094,966 || € 171,707,565

|| Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

|| TOTAL || 8 || € 80,740,072 || € 65,872,527 || € 25,094,966 || € 171,707,565

|| || || || || ||

IMI Call 3 - 2010 || Number || IMI JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Additional own resources (€) || Total contributions (€) ||

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || 5 || € 78,867,056 || € 49,406,263 || € 24,257,136 || € 152,530,455 ||

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || 2 || € 32,949,256 || € 19,478,179 || € 10,401,609 || € 62,829,044 ||

TOTAL || 7 || € 111,816,312 || € 68,884,442 || € 34,658,745 || € 215,359,499 ||

In 2011, 13
grants agreements were signed: 8 relating to the 2nd Call and 5 to the 3rd
Call. Besides, grant agreements for 2 projects of Call 3 are planned to be
signed early in 2012. The complete list is provided
with further details in annex 12.

2.6.2.     Grant
agreements for which activities have ended and/or final results are available

No grant agreements were ended in 2011. No
final results from previous calls are yet available.

3.           Progress
achieved by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH) JU

3.1.        Introduction
to the FCH JU

The Fuel Cells
and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "FCH JU")
has been established by Council Regulation (EC) N° 521/2008 of 30 May 2008 as
an industry-led public-private partnership supporting research, technological
development and demonstration (RTD) activities in fuel cell and hydrogen energy
technologies in Europe. The FCH JU members are the New Energy World Industry
Grouping (NEW-IG)[27],
representing the fuel cell and hydrogen industries, the N.ERGHY Research
Grouping[28],
representing the research community, and the European Union, represented by the
European Commission.

The FCH JU has
been set up for a period up to 31 December 2017 with the main objective to
significantly accelerate the market introduction of fuel cell and hydrogen
technologies, realising their potential as an instrument in achieving a
carbon-clean energy system. The broader use of fuel cells, as an efficient
power conversion technology, and hydrogen, as an environment-friendly energy
carrier, can contribute to reduce greenhouse gas emissions[29], and lower
the dependence on hydrocarbons, and to stimulate the economic growth. The aim
of the FCH JU is to bring these benefits to Europeans through a concentrated
effort from all sectors pooling together public and
private resources.

3.1.1.     Budget

The maximum EU contribution to the FCH JU
is € 470 million, covering running costs (€ 20 million) and operational costs
(€ 450 million). The EU contribution is paid from the appropriations in the
general budget of the European Union allocated to themes "Energy",
"Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and New Production
Technologies", "Environment" and "Transport" of the
Specific Programme "Cooperation" under the FP7. For operational costs,
the EU contribution shall be matched by all the legal entities participating in
the FCH JU activities.

3.1.2.     Activities

The FCH JU programme of activities
comprises long-term and breakthrough-orientated research, research and
technological development, and demonstration and support actions. Project
support is mainly granted following open and competitive calls for proposals,
peer review evaluation and the conclusion of Grant Agreements. A small number
of activities are implemented thorough calls for tender (i.e. public
procurement).

The strategic research and demonstration
priorities of the FCH JU are set out in the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan
(MAIP). This document is critical since it outlines the activities to be
supported by the FCH JU and serves as a basis to draft the Annual
Implementation Plans (AIP) which contains inter alia the topics for the annual
Calls for Proposals. The MAIP 2008-2013 outlines four main application areas
(AA):

(1)
Transport & Refuelling Infrastructure – It has as a main objective the development and testing of
competitive hydrogen-fuelled road vehicles and corresponding hydrogen
refuelling infrastructure, and the full range of supporting elements for market
deployment and increased industrial capacity. Approximately 32-36% of the
overall budget will be devoted to this application area

(2)
Hydrogen Production and Storage – It aims to develop and, where possible, fully implement a
portfolio of cost-competitive, energy efficient and sustainable hydrogen
production, storage and distribution processes enabling supply of the
anticipated hydrogen energy demand while demonstrating the role that hydrogen
can play as an energy carrier in reaching Europe’s key long term and mid-term
energy objectives. Approximately 10-12% of the overall budget will be devoted
to this application area

(3)
Stationary Power Production & Combined
Heat and Power – The overall objective is to
improve the technology for fuel cell stack and balance of plant components to
the level required by the stationary power generation and CHP (Combined Heat
& Power) markets by bridging the gap between laboratory prototypes and
pre-commercial systems. Approximately 34-37 % of the overall budget will
be devoted to this application area.

(4)
Early Markets –
The aim is to develop and deploy a range of fuel cell-based products capable of
entering the market in the near term and to turn into commercial success
stories. Early markets are considered strategically important to build up and
sustain an early manufacturing and supply base for fuel cells products and
systems. Approximately 12-14 % of the overall budget will be devoted to this
application area.

Cross-cutting activities have been established as a fifth area to provide programme level
coordination. These include drafting of regulations and formulation of codes
and standards, pre-normative and socio-economic research, technology and life
cycle assessments, market support (particularly for SMEs), public awareness and
education. Approximately 6-8% of the overall budget will be dedicated to these
cross-cutting activities.

3.1.3.     Governing
structure

For
coordinating the inputs of all the members and managing its activities, the
Joint Undertaking's governance structure comprises of two executive bodies –
the Governing Board and the Executive Director assisted by the Programme
Office, and three advisory bodies – the Scientific Committee, the States
Representatives Group (SRG) and the Stakeholders' General Assembly.

3.2.        Outline
of the main activities and achievements in 2011

The main operational objectives of the FCH
JU in 2011 focused on the negotiation of grant agreements resulting from the
2010 call, the evaluation of proposals of the 2011 call, the management of
on-going projects, the revision of the Multi Annual Implementation Plan (MAIP),
the drafting of Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) 2012 and the communication
activities.

In the field of administration and finance
the most important achievements were the finalisation of the Establishment
Plan, the adoption of the new procedures to complete and strengthen the
internal control system, the validation of the accounting system and the
mitigation of critical risks identified during the Risk Management Process.

Moreover, two key milestones were achieved
during this period: (i) the adoption of Council Regulation (EU) N° 1183/2011 of
14 November 2011, amending the FCH JU founding regulation and (ii) the first
interim evaluation of the FCH JU.

3.2.1.     Organisation
of the team in FCH JU.

Since June
2011 FCH JU has reached full capacity in staff recruitment, in line with its
Staff Establishment Plan: 18 temporary agents and 2 contract agents.

3.2.2.     Main
operational activities and achievements

The key operational achievements are
related to two Calls for Proposals, FCH-JU-2010-1 and FCH-JU-2011-1. The former was concluded with the successful
negotiation of 26 grant agreements with a financial contribution of the FCH JU
of €83.8 M. In addition some public tenders
were also launched in order to produce comparative studies on the benefits of
fuel cells and hydrogen in different application areas.

The RTD priorities and topics to be
included in the AIP for the 2012 call were initially drafted by the Application
Area Working Groups led by representatives of the member companies of the
Industry Grouping. The AIP 2012 was completed after consultations with the
relevant services of the Commission, the Scientific Committee and the FCH JU
States Representatives Group. Based on the AIP 2102, the 2012 call for
proposals will include 31 topics, with an estimated FCH JU financial
contribution of € 77.5 million.

Another important achievement was the
revision of the MAIP. The process was initiated by the end of 2010 and was
completed during 2011.The revised version proposes new targets for the
different Application Areas. These targets have been extended until year 2020
(instead of 2015) and updated taking into consideration the technical and
scientific progress achieved since the first MAIP. The current version is
ambitious and competitive in comparison with efforts world-wide and will be
used in the elaboration of the coming Annual Implementation Plans of the FCH JU
(i.e. 2012 and 2013).

As a result of the MAIP review, some topics
will not be considered in future calls (Cryogenic hydrogen storage, Hydrogen
Internal Combustion Engines (ICE), Rail propulsion, Application readiness of
stationary Fuel Cells, Manufacturing, assembly and testing of micro fuel cells
and Pre-normative research and RCS of safe in-door use of fuel cells). On the
other hand, the following 6 topics have been added:

-
Optimization of electrolyzer design for energy
storage

-
Resource efficient production of hydrogen from
biogas

-
Resource efficient conversion of hydrogen to
electricity

-
Optimized systems for electricity storage and
restitution from and to the grid via hydrogen

-
Demonstration of portable and micro FCs for
various applications

-
Research and development of >1kW fuel cell
systems and hydrogen supply for early market applications.

The
operational indicators for the follow-up of the programme implementation are
indicated in the table below.

 Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking – RTD activities

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES || Result indicators

Indicator || Target  || Latest known results

1 || To address technological and non-technological barriers to commercialisation of FCH technologies as defined in the MAIP || Coverage of topics called for || 100% by 2013 || 81%[30]

Percentage of proposals which successfully address the criteria of scientific and/or technological excellence[31] || 70% by 2013 || 86%[32]

Percentage of projects which have fully achieved their objectives and technical goals and have even exceeded expectations || 60%[33] by 2013 || Data not yet available [34]

2 || To promote the use and dissemination of research results  with a view specifically to commercialising FCH technologies || Percentage of proposals which successfully addressed the criterion of dissemination and use of project results[35] || 70% by 2013 || 85%[36]

Percentage of projects showing evidence that they will produce significant  scientific, technical, commercial, social or environmental impacts || 60%[37] by 2013 || Data not yet available

Percentage of industrial participation in the projects of which SMEs || 50% of industrial participation by 2013 || 65%[38]

15% of SMEs participation by 2013[39] || 24%[40]

Percentage of projects which generate one or more patent applications || 30%  by 2013 || Data not yet available

3.2.3.     Amendment
of Council Regulation

Recognising the membership of the N.ERGHY Research Grouping,
on November 2011, the 14th, the Council of Ministers adopted the
Regulation (EU) No 1183/2011[41] which amended the original Council Regulation
setting up the FCH JU. By this amendment the EU contribution shall now be
matched by those from all FCH JU beneficiaries (including research centres and
universities) and not only, as before the amendment, from industry. This will
result inter alia in a better alignment of the FCH JU maximum funding
rates with those of FP7 making them more attractive and predictable than at
present. The amendment does not affect the Union contribution to the Joint
Undertaking (i.e. no additional budget is requested) and has no impact on the
FCH JU objectives, legal status, structure and/or statutes. It also clarifies a
number of minor but important issues, including how to take national and
regional funding into account, the possibility for the FCH JU members to pay
their financial contribution in instalments.

3.2.4.     Administrative
and financial activities

The premises of
the FCH JU Programme Office moved from COVE (Covent Garden) to the "White Atrium" (Avenue de la Toison
d’Or 56-60) in January 2011. The
new IT infrastructure was established and enhanced throughout the year and, in collaboration with the Accountant of the FCH JU, the inventory
database for IT equipment and furniture was set up.

Since June 2011 the Staff Establishment
Plan is fully filled. Eight new staff members took up their duties during the
year. Furthermore, FCH JU rules governing trainees and their implementation
were adopted and the first two trainees were hosted.

The Internal Audit Capability (IAC)
carried out two assurance engagements (‘Assessment of FCH JU users’ access
rights granted in ABAC’ and ‘Assessment of FCH JU users’ access rights granted
in FP7 IT systems’), provided consulting services on four distinct areas (Risk
Management, Annual Activity Report, Management Reporting and Internal Control
Standards) and was responsible of the setting up of the ex-post audit process.
In addition, the IAC carried out jointly with the Commission’s Internal
Audit Service (IAS) a risk assessment in order to establish a risk-based
and coordinated audit plan for the period 2011-2013.

New procedures to complete and strengthen
the internal control system were adopted, in particular for review and
acceptance of periodic reports and cost claims and for ex-post audit of
beneficiaries, and implemented as the first cost claims were received and the
first audits were launched. The accounting system was validated by the
Accountant of the FCH JU on 21 November 2011.

The identification of critical risks in the
frame of the Risk Management process early 2011 (e.g. impact of funding rates
on attractiveness of the programme, IT issues) enabled the development of
corrective actions to mitigate them as confirmed by the risk management
exercise carried out in October 2011.

3.2.5.     Governance
- Major decisions taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies

3.2.5.1.  FCH JU Governing Board

The FCH
Governing Board held three meetings in 2011:

·
The 8th Governing Board meeting
was held on 10 March 2011. The main decisions taken were: adoption of the first
budget amendment for the financial year 2011; approval of the list of proposals
to start negotiations for call FCH-JU-2010-1;
adoption of the "Implementing Rules on Access to documents".

·
At the 9th Governing Board meeting
on 24 June 2011, Mr. Pierre-Etienne Franc, representing the NEW Industry
Grouping was unanimously elected as the new chairman of the FCH JU Governing
Board.

·
The 10th Governing Board meeting
was held on 22 November 2011. The main decisions taken were: adoption of the
revised MAIP; Decision to adopt the Amendment N°2 to the FCH JU Budget 2011;
approval of the list of proposals to start negotiations of FCH-JU-2011-1;
request to the IAS to act as independent auditor of the JU, together with the
IAC, to carry-out the assessment of the level of in-kind contributions.

The following
documents were adopted and/or approved by the FCH JU Governing Board via
written procedure:

-
Ex-post audit strategy

-
Multi Annual Staff Policy Plan

-
Annual Implementation Plan 2011

-
Provisional and final annual accounts of
financial year 2010

-
FCH JU Budget 2012

-
Staff Establishment Plan 2012

-
FCH JU Annual Implementation Plan 2012

-
FCH JU Annual Activity Report

-
Coordinated IAS-IAC strategic audit plan for
2011-2013

-
Negotiation results and decision for concluding
a grant agreement for the (8) batches of projects from the Call FCH-JU-2010-1.

3.2.5.2.  FCH JU Consultative bodies

The Scientific Committee met once
during the year (14 June) and its members agreed to support the annual review
of FCH JU and FP7 projects by advising on the process (templates and programme)
and its follow-up (final report to be published). They also provided input on the scientific priorities of the AIP 2011 and AIP 2012 and on the revision of
the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan (MAIP).

The States Representatives Group (SRG) held three meetings in
2011. The focus of the first two meetings was for the Programme Office, and for
the Commission and the Industry Grouping, to provide updates to the Group
members on the FCH JU progress and main issues. Discussions on the way to improve
coordination between Member States (MS) and FCH JU Programmes were on the
agenda of the third meeting. They revealed different levels of advancement and
commitment among the participant MS and difficulties to agree on jointly funded
actions.  The SRG was also consulted on the topics of the calls for proposals
2011 and 2012, and on the revision of the MAIP. It was also requested to
provide with data on projects funded at MS level, as part of a "mapping
exercise" carried out by SETIS, the Strategic Energy Technology
Information System of the Joint Research Centre (JRC).

The Stakeholders General Assembly
was held in Brussels on 22 & 23 November 2011, organised in two parts:
first day on the review of on-going projects[42]
and second day on a political session involving all the stakeholders, MEPs and
international guests[43].

3.2.6.     Outcome
of 1st interim evaluation

The first interim evaluation of the FCH JU
was carried out by the Commission with the assistance of a panel of independent
experts. The evaluation had as an objective to assess the effectiveness,
efficiency and quality of the FCH JU operations, both with regard to the Joint
Undertaking and its operating bodies and the technical activities carried out
by its members and project participants.

The primary outcome of the experts' report[44] is that the
FCH JU is an achievement and represents a valuable instrument for the European
Union that should be maintained and supported to implement its work as
originally envisaged. However, the experts have also identified a number of
issues encountered by the FCH JU as well as some areas where its operation
could be improved.

The experts considered that the set-up of
the FCH JU took too long and concluded that the current legal framework as a
“Community/Union body” is not best-suited to industry led public-private
partnerships like JTIs and should be streamlined. They also highlighted that
funding rates for FCH JU projects have proved variable from year to year and,
in addition, always considerably lower than those of FP7. They also expressed
concerns about the inadequate resources of the Programme Office for effective
project monitoring and management, the insufficient cohesion and collaboration
with Member States’ related programmes and the lack of a robust project monitoring and assessment and an
international cooperation strategy.

In order to address these issues the
experts' panel made a series of recommendations that aim to remove or reduce
weaknesses as identified in the current operations of the FCH JU and to improve
its effectiveness and quality. The specific recommendations are grouped in five
broad categories:

(1)
Reinforce portfolio management:

(2)
Ensure high agility of operations and
adaptability to changing competitive forces

(3)
Improve visibility, communication and outreach

(4)
Improve collaboration and alignment with Member
States

(5)
Ensure high efficiency of operations

3.2.7.     Main
communication activities

FCH JU communication activities mainly aim
at raising awareness of the FCH technologies and their contribution to the
current energy and environmental challenges.  The presentation of FCH
activities and the opportunities offered by the Calls for Proposals is made at
national, European and international level. The main events and initiatives to
be quoted are the following:

-
Development of a new web site address[45] managed in-house, replacing the sub-site hosted by DG RTD. After a
successful launch (15 March 2011), more than 40,000 visitors (47% new and 53%
returning) have been recorded.

-
Presence of an information stand in the
Charlemagne building during the EU Sustainable Energy Week (10 to 14 April
2011).

-
Info Day (Brussels, 12 May) and brokerage event (Berlin, 19 May) on call for proposals
FCH-JU-2011-1. Industry and research met in Berlin to discuss proposals for
Call 2011. The meeting was an opportunity for all parties interested in
responding to the Call for proposals 2011 to receive detailed information about
the call, discuss concrete project ideas and find partners for their project
consortia. Approximately 130 representatives of industry and research joined
this 3rd FCH JU Brokerage event, highlighting the importance of Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen technologies for European energy future.

-
The Stakeholders General Assembly
(Brussels, 2 & 23 November 2011) proposed a review of the on-going projects
(44 from FCH JU calls and 14 from FP7 calls)[46] on the one hand, and a political session involving all the
stakeholders, MEPs and international guests[47]. About 400 people participated in these events, representatives
from the industry (for a large majority), the research community, Member
States, Regions and EU public authorities. A "Drive n’Ride" event was
also organised by the industry, where more than 120 participants had the
opportunity to experience driving in one of the 8 fuel cell electric cars
displayed and see a fully mobile and compact hydrogen station.

-
"Innovation in action": joint
exhibition in the European Parliament in Brussels in collaboration with the
other 4 Joint Undertakings from 4 to 6 October 2011, followed by a public
conference, which counted on the presence of a number of MEPs.

-
Promotion of the FCH JU hydrogen-powered fuel
cell car on lease. This car is to demonstrate the readiness of this technology
to EU policy makers and citizens. It was available for testing by Members of
the European Parliament, Commissioners, EU Officials and other policy makers.

-
Participation of the Executive Director and/or
the Programme Office staff in some 25 external events and conferences in
different MS and key non-European countries (US, Japan, Korea, China, Canada) to present the FCH JU developments and explore further potential
collaboration.

-
Besides these activities, the following events
were organised: During the Challenge Bibendum event 2011, FCH Joint Undertaking
organised an Information session to present its objectives and explain
how companies and organisations can benefit from taking part in its activities
(19 May 2011, Berlin). It was hosted at the Tempelhof Airport and welcomed
about 30 representatives of industry, research and public administration.

-
The first ADEL project International workshop[48] (20 October 2011, Sevilla). The first workshop from ADEL project,
supported by FCH JU, would serve as a catalyst for communication and data
exchange between international experts in energy vector production plants,
integrating non-fossil energy sources. It was relevant to the scientific
community and to industry representatives. Well-known speakers from both the
scientific community and industry have been invited to present the latest
information on their research and technologies, and to share their experience
with participants.

Furthermore, FCH JU issued 5 press releases on 2011 main
achievements, namely:

-
New Board members for the Industry Grouping of
the FCH JU (5 April 2011)

-
Launch of FCH 4th annual call for proposals  (3
May 2011)

-
FCH JU driving a hydrogen-powered fuel cells car
(4 October 2011)

-
Early achievements of the Joint Technology
Initiatives’ €10 billion R&D programme highlighted at the European
Parliament (6 October 2011)

-
4th stakeholders General Assembly (23 November
2011)

3.2.8.     Success
story

It is to underline that most projects need
to wait until they are finished before one can call them really major successes.
Nevertheless the following on-going project has already been selected as an
illustrative "societal story" for the communication campaign for the
2013 calls publication and should be mentioned.

A number of European cities are currently pioneering the development
and introduction of city buses powered by environmentally-friendly hydrogen
fuel cells. The Clean Hydrogen In European Cities Project (CHIC)[49] began in November 2010 to promote the development of hydrogen fuel
cell (FCH) buses for public transport and prepare the way for the widespread
use of this technology and its associated infrastructure starting in 2015.

The project which is co-financed by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen
Joint Undertaking, regions and local public transport authorities, brings
together vehicle manufacturers, transport operators and hydrogen infrastructure
providers in Belgium, Germany, Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway,
Switzerland and the UK.

The FCH buses use hydrogen fuel cells to generate electricity to
drive the wheels. The buses are sometimes augmented in a hybrid fashion with
batteries or a supercapacitor. The process of producing hydrogen from natural
gas and steam is currently the most cost effective and reliable method and, as
the industry expands, costs could be further reduced and sustainability further
increased.

Under the CHIC project 26 hydrogen fuel cell powered buses are being
deployed together with the necessary hydrogen refuelling infrastructure in
normal city bus operations across a number of European cities. The partners in
Phase 1 of the CHIC project include Aarau (Switzerland), Bolzano (Italy), London, Milan and Oslo.

In a second phase of the project, the CHIC project team together
with the European Association for Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Electro-mobility in
European Regions (HyER), will facilitate the uptake of the use of FCH buses in
a further group of European regions and cities - the so-called CHIC Phase 2 cities
- that have expressed interest in using FCH buses in their public transport
fleets.

In September 2011 two hydrogen-driven fuel cell hybrid buses
successfully finished a four-month test period in Germany. The 18 metre long
'bendy' buses named "Phileas" are now taking up regular public
transport service on inner-city and regional lines around the cities of Hürth
and Brühl.

The CHIC project is an essential next step towards full
commercialisation of hydrogen powered fuel cell buses. CHIC aims to reduce the
'time to market' for the technology and support 'market lift off'.

The CHIC project coordinator commented: "The CHIC project is
based on a staged introduction and build-up of FCH bus fleets and the
supporting infrastructure across Europe. A phased approach will link together
experienced and new cities in partnerships which will greatly facilitate the
smooth introduction of the new systems now and into the future". “The
expected results of CHIC will take the technology to the brink of commercialisation,
leading in turn to very significant environmental and economic benefits for
Europe and the community worldwide”, the project coordinator adds.

3.3.        Call
implementation

The FCH JU launches open and
competitive calls for proposals annually on the basis of which
funding is granted for research, technological development and demonstration
projects. The topics stem from the FCH JU Annual Implementation Plan
(AIP) and are consistent with the five Application Areas described in
the introduction and with the RTD priorities and key objectives for the
respective year.

Two types of funding schemes are
used to implement projects in the FCH JU: 1) collaborative projects, and 2)
coordination and support actions. The schemes to be used in the different calls
are announced in the call fiche.

–
Collaborative projects are objective-driven research projects aiming at developing new
knowledge, technology or product. Participants must form a consortium of at
least three legal entities established in different EU Member States or FP7
associated countries, of which at least one should be a member of the Industry
Grouping or the Research Grouping. Collaborative projects typically last two
to five years.

–
The second funding scheme allows also for two
other types of actions to be financed: coordination (networking) actions,
coordinating research activities and policies and support actions
contributing to the Annual Implementation Plan and the preparation of
future EU research and technological development policy. Coordination actions
are normally completed in two to four years, while support actions
have a shorter duration.

FCH JU's projects are selected through
calls for proposals following a single stage submission and
evaluation process. Applications must be submitted using a special web-based
service before a strictly-enforced deadline. The notifications for calls for
proposals are published in the Official Journal of the European Union and
broadly announced through various communication channels, including on the FCH
JU website, indicating call topics, indicative budget, funding scheme,
deadlines for submission and links to the submission tool.

The whole call process is managed by the
Programme Office of the FCH JU according to the principles of excellence,
transparency, fairness and impartiality, confidentiality, efficiency, speed and
ethical and security considerations and following the FCH JU Rules for
submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award
procedures.

As a first
step, the FCH JU performs an eligibility check to see whether the
applicants meet the announced eligibility criteria. Then FCH JU appoints
independent experts to assist with the evaluation of proposals and
identify those of best quality for possible funding. All eligible proposals are
evaluated with respect to the evaluation criteria and the associated weight and
thresholds set for the call, outlined in the table below:

№ || Evaluation criterion || Score || Weight || Threshold

1. || S/T Excellence || 0 to 5 || --- || 3/5

2. || Quality and efficiency || 0 to 5 || --- || 3/5

3. || Impact || 0 to 5 || --- || 3/5

|| Total score: || 15 || || 10/30

Evaluations are
done in three steps: remotely, through on-site consensus meetings and panel
reviews. During the remote evaluation, proposals are assessed
individually by a minimum of three experts and the results are included in an individual
evaluation report. Once the experts complete their individual assessments,
the evaluation proceeds to a consensus assessment, the objective of
which is to exchange common views on the evaluated proposals. The results of
the consensus meetings are included in consensus evaluation reports. The
final step in the evaluation process is the panel review. The outcome of this
review are the evaluation summary reports for each proposal, including
a list of ranked proposals above thresholds for each application area, a
list of proposals failing one or more thresholds and a list of ineligible
proposals, if any. The presence of independent observers during the
different evaluation stages verifies and guarantees that the above-mentioned
rules and principles are followed.

After
completing the evaluation and establishing ranked lists with proposals for
funding for each application area and a reserve list, these lists are presented
to the FCH JU Governing Board. Once the latter approves the list of proposals
to be funded, the Joint Undertaking enters into negotiations with the
coordinators. If a negotiation is successfully concluded, the project is
selected and a grant agreement providing for a FCH JU financial contribution is
signed.

The whole
evaluation process is described in the figure below:

Implementation
in 2011:

The FCH JU launched and evaluated one
call for proposals (FCH-JU-2011-1). The evaluation was carried out by 37
independent experts and 2 chairpersons who oversaw the whole consensus
phase. In addition, 1 independent observer monitored that the evaluation
procedure was carried out in a fair, impartial and confidential manner. The individual
remote evaluations took place from 5 to 16
September and the consensus meetings from 19 to 21 September 2011, which were followed by the final Panel
meeting on 22 and 23 September 2011. The details of
the evaluation are provided in section below.

The indicative
FCH JU funding per application area for this call FCH-JU-2011-1 is:

Application Area || Indicative FCH JU Funding (Million €)

1. Transportation & Refuelling Infrastructure || 36.0

2. Hydrogen Production & Distribution || 16.0

3. Stationary Power Generation & CHP || 38.0

4. Early Markets || 15.0

5. Cross-cutting Issues || 4.0

Total indicative FCH JU Funding[50]. || 109.0

3.4.        Call
FCH-JU-2011-1

3.4.1.     Summary information

Call Identifier || FCH-JU-2011-1

Publication date || 3 June 2011

Deadline || 18 August 2011

Evaluation || August-September 2011

Negotiation kick-off || 22 November 2011

Indicative Total budget || € 109 million[51]

EU contribution after evaluation || € 111,328,441

In-kind contribution after evaluation || € 102,283,790

Number of topics / Application areas || 5

Reference to call topics || Annex 13

Any other information that might be relevant for this particular call. ||

3.4.2.     Analysis of proposals submitted

82 proposals were submitted and 80 met the
eligibility criteria. The distribution by application area is presented below.
A particular interest for the production and distribution of Hydrogen and
stationary power generation and CHP (respectively more than 30% and 25% of the
submitted proposals) is to be noted, the two topics being the most significant
in terms of budget.

Application Area || Submitted || Eligible

1. Transportation & Refuelling Infrastructure || 18 || 18

2. Hydrogen Production & Distribution || 26 || 26

3. Stationary Power Generation & CHP || 21 || 21

4. Early Markets || 10 || 10

5. Cross-cutting Issues || 7 || 5

Total: || 82 || 80

Below you may find the number of
participants to the call and the respective distribution and success rate by type of participants, of which SMEs:

Type of participants || Number of participants in the Proposals || Number of participants in the best-ranked Proposals || Participants success rate

Public Bodies || 4 || 4 || 100%

Research organisations || 180 || 127 || 71%

Higher or secondary education || 141 || 80 || 57%

Private for profit (excl. education) || 157 || 119 || 76%

SMEs || 174 || 126 || 72%

Others || 11 || 9 || 82%

Total || 667 || 465 || 70%

In the next page you may find the
geographical distribution of the 667 participants:

3.4.3.     Evaluation results

80 eligible
proposals were submitted for evaluation, of which 53 passed the thresholds. The
Governing Board approved on 22 November 2011 a ranked list of 30 proposals, to
start negotiations with, and a reserve list of 23 proposals.

|| 4.2.1.submitted proposal || 4.1.3. evaluation results

Application Area || Submitted || Eligible || % of retained || Above threshold || Selected for funding || Reserve list

1. Transportation & Refuelling Infrastructure || 18 || 18 || 100% || 12 || 67% || 10 || 56% || 2

2. Hydrogen Production & Distribution || 26 || 26 || 100% || 15 || 58% || 8 || 31% || 7

3. Stationary Power Generation & CHP || 21 || 21 || 100% || 15 || 71% || 6 || 29% || 9

4. Early Markets || 10 || 10 || 100% || 7 || 70% || 4 || 40% || 3

5. Cross-cutting Issues || 7 || 5 || 71% || 4 || 57% || 2 || 29% || 2

Total || 82 || 81 || 99% || 53 || 65% || 30 || 37% || 23

The total number of participants in the 30 proposals selected
for funding is 285. The distribution per type is illustrated below:

Type of participants || Number of participants in the proposals selected for funding

Public Bodies || 3

Research organisations || 77

Higher or secondary education || 49

Private for profit (excl. education) || 76

SMEs || 73

Others || 7

Total: || 285

Geographical
distribution of the participants in the proposals selected for funding. Germany is leading, followed by the UK, France and Italy.

3.5.        Grant
agreements/project portfolio

3.5.1.     Grant
agreements signed (commitment amounts) in 2011
(Call FCH-JU-2010-1)

Results from
call FCH-JU-2010-1 are now available (Publication on 18 June 2010, with
deadline for submission on 13 October 2010 and evaluation between 1-18 October
2010.)

The Governing
Board approved on 10 March 2011 a list of 27 proposals with an additional
16 on the reserve list, ranked in priority order according to the
evaluation results, to start negotiations to conclude Grant Agreements.

The negotiations started on 18 March 2011 and were concluded during
December 2011 with the approval of the Governing Board for funding of 26
projects (from the initial 27 proposals, two failed during the negotiation
phase, and one proposal was selected from the reserve list). The negotiations were concluded with the signature of the
following Grants Agreements (all before end 2011).

Call FCH-JU-2010-1 || Number || CS JU contribution (€) || In-kind contribution (€) || Total contributions (€)

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || 26 || € 83,676,084 || € 101,840.924 || € 185,517,008

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

TOTAL || 26 || € 83,676,084 || € 101,840.924 || € 185,517,008

The complete list
of grants signed is provided with further details in annex 14.

3.5.2.     Grant
agreements for which activities have ended and/or final results are available

Activities related to 5 grant agreements
have already ended in 2011. They were all signed with starting date 01/01/2010.
The initial requested funding on the projects was on a wide range, varying from
€ 257,075 to € 1,193,016. The total contribution is available for one grant
(final payment was not made for the 4 others, therefore final amount is not yet
available).

The complete list is provided with further
details in annex 15.

4.           Progress
achieved by the ARTEMIS JU

4.1.        Introduction
to the ARTEMIS JU

Growing out of the ARTEMIS European
Technology Platform (ETP), the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking (hereinafter referred
to as "ARTEMIS JU") was established by Council Regulation (EC)
74/2008 of 20 December 2007 as a public-private partnership between the
European Commission, the participating Member and Associated States (by now 23
countries)[52],
and ARTEMIS-IA[53],
a non-profit industrial association of R&D actors in the field of embedded
computer systems.

The ARTEMIS JU has been set up for a period
up to 31 December 2017 with the main objective to tackle the research and
structural challenges in embedded systems faced by the industrial sector. The
goal is to define and implement a Research Agenda for Embedded Computing
Systems. ARTEMIS JU aims to help European industry consolidate and
reinforce its world leadership in embedded computing technologies.

4.1.1.     Budget

The maximum EU contribution to the ARTEMIS
Joint Undertaking is set to € 420 million paid from the appropriations in the
general budget of the European Union allocated to the theme "Information
and Communication Technologies" of the Specific Programme
"Cooperation" under the FP7. The research activities of the entity
are supported also through financial contributions from the ARTEMIS Member
States amounting to at least 1.8 times the EU contribution (€ 756 million) and
through in-kind contributions by research and development organisations
participating in projects, which at least match the contribution of the public
authorities.

4.1.2.     Governing
structure

The ARTEMIS
Joint Undertaking is managed by an Executive Director. Its governance structure
comprises a Governing Board, a Public Authorities Board (PAB) and an Industry
and Research Committee (IRC).

-
The Governing Board has overall responsibility for the operations of the ARTEMIS Joint
Undertaking. Its role is to oversee the implementation of the JU. It consists
of representatives from Industry (ARTEMISIA) and Public Authorities including
the Commission and Member States. Voting rights are split equally: 50%
for Industry and 50% for public authorities.

-
The Industry and Research Committee represents the interests of industry and the research community
through Artemisia, the Artemis Industrial Association. It consists of members
appointed by ARTEMISIA. Its role is to draft the Multi-Annual Strategic Plan
based on the Research Agenda. In addition, it drafts an Annual Work Programme
for the activities of the JU including calls for research proposals.

-
The Public Authorities Board (PAB) consists of representatives of the ARTEMIS Member States and the European Commission. It discusses and approves the Annual Work Programme. It is
also responsible for the decisions on the scope and budget of the calls for
proposals, launch of the calls, selection of proposals and allocation of public
funds for selected proposals. A third of the voting rights are assigned to the
Commission and the remaining two thirds are allocated to Member States.

-
The Executive Director is the chief executive of the Joint Undertaking whose role is to
ensure its day-to-day management. He is appointed by the Governing Board, for a
period of three years and is supported by a secretariat - the ARTEMIS-JU Office
- which handles the operational aspects of the JU.

4.2.        Outline
of the main activities and achievements in 2011

After its establishment, ARTEMIS gradually
developed operational capacity. It was granted administrative and operational
autonomy from the Commission on 26 October 2009 and 2011 was the second full
year of independent functioning of the Joint Undertaking. Together with the
other JUs, the JU has its premises in the White Atrium building in Brussels since January 2011.

4.2.1.     Key
milestones

-
Launch of the ARTEMIS fourth call for proposals;

-
Grant agreements signature and kick-off of the
selected proposals in the 2010 call;

-
Monitoring and review of the ongoing 2008 and
2009 calls for proposals;

-
Definition of an IAS Strategic Audit Plan 2012-2014;

4.2.2.     Organisation
of the team in ARTEMIS JU

In 2011, ARTEMIS JU staff increased from 11
employees to 13, 8 Temporary agents and 5 Contract agents (out of 7 authorised
by budget 2011).

4.2.3.     Progress
in the implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda

ARTEMIS European
Technology Platform (ETP) issued its first Strategic Research Agenda in
2006 to set the scene on R&D and innovation on Embedded Systems in Europe
and recommended that a Joint Undertaking should be established in order to
create an extra initiative in Europe to achieve the goals set out in the SRA
2006.

Since 2006 new
technical options and challenges have occurred and it was time to update the
agenda in accordance with the new challenges. The revised SRA is to give a clear perspective of what is needed in Europe in
the next decade from all R&D and innovation actors, to make Europe the leader in Embedded Systems. The ARTEMIS Industry
Association presented the updated SRA 2011 in Brussels on 18 May 2011.

4.2.4.     Governance
- Major decisions taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies

The running of the Governing Board and the
PAB run smoothly in 2011. The Governing Board held 3 meetings in 2011 and the
PAB met twice. Besides, there were four written procedures.

The main decisions taken by the Governing
Board during the year were related to the following topics:

-
Ex-post Audit Strategies;

-
Annual Implementation Plan and Budget Plan 2012;

-
Multi-Annual Strategic Plan and Research Agenda
2012-2014;

-
Decision allowing the JU to hire seconded
national experts

-
Annual Accounts and Annual Activity Report for
the year 2010;

-
Multi-Annual Staff Policy Plan 2011-2013;

-
Adoption of the JU's Annual Implementation
Plan 2010 and Annual Budget Plan 2011.

4.2.5.     Outcome
of the first interim evaluation[54]

In accordance
with Article 11.2 the Commission had to carry out an interim evaluation of the
ARTEMIS and ENIAC JU with the assistance of independent experts by the end of
2010. A panel of 8 independent experts was invited by the Commission to
simultaneously evaluate both ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs as they were set up using an
identical design.

Their work
started in May 2010 and the final report by the evaluation panel[55] was issued on
30 July 2010, followed by a communication by the Commission[56], published on 16 December 2010. The
communication highlighted the findings and recommendations of the experts,
formulated the Commission response and set out follow-up measures.

The objective of the first interim
evaluation was to assess ARTEMIS and ENIAC, with respect to their:

·
Relevance: The continuing validity of the
assumptions set at the start/planning phase of the JTIs;

·
Effectiveness: The progress towards meeting the
objectives set;

·
Efficiency: The extent to which the JTIs have
been managed and operated efficiently; and

·
Research Quality: The extent to which the JTIs
sponsor world-class research that helps propel Europe to a leadership position
globally.

The evaluation panel recognised the value of a
tripartite structure for JTIs in the fields of embedded computing systems and
nanoelectronics, pooling resources from industry, the EU and Member States to leverage a strategic vision for Europe. The panel
affirmed the importance of continuing the coordination at European level of
research and technology in these fields and called for a refocusing, involving
all stakeholders, on evolving and implementing their strategic research
agendas.

The panel also highlighted some
difficulties to tackle to go forward:

·
the overall investments from Member States,
industry and the EU into research and technology development in the JTIs areas
have not increased as much as expected;

·
the funding commitment by member States is
significantly below that which was expected, jeopardising the JTIs’ ability to
establish a critical mass of activity and severely constraining the
construction of appropriate portfolios of projects;

·
the process for selection of projects gives
insufficient consideration to the JTIs’ European strategic objectives;

·
the JTIs have not so far implemented activities
specifically targeted at improving the innovation environment in Europe; and

·
certain features of the Council Regulations that
govern ARTEMIS and ENIAC, as well as financial regulations and other
administrative requirements, inhibit rather than enable the realisation of their
aims.

The evaluation panel made a set of 18
recommendations that would benefit to the improvement of the JTIs
efficiency. Those recommendations concern all stakeholders: the Commission, the
Member States, the industrial associations and the JU. An appropriate
follow-up will be part of the 2nd interim evaluation scheduled to be
completed by the end of 2013.

4.2.6.     Main
communication activities

·
Key events in 2011

An important
and key activity is the promotion of the ARTEMIS Call 2011 that was launched on
1 March 2011. In December 2010, ARTEMIS Industry Association gave
the start signal with the ARTEMIS Brokerage Event.

Following this
event, National ARTEMIS and Brokerage events were organized by the
respective national platforms in cooperation with ARTEMIS Programme Officers:

-
ARTEMIS Networking event in Vienna -  organized
by the ARTEMIS Austria Platform (1 February 2011);

-
ARTEMIS Networking Event in London -  organized
by the Electronics Knowledge Centre (11 February 2011);

-
ARTEMIS Networking event for Call 2011 in Paris - organized by UBI France (10 March 2011);

-
National ARTEMIS/ENIAC event for Call 2011 in
Prague - co-organized by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, OKO ICT
Branch Contact Organization and Technology centre (21 March 2011);

-
National ARTEMIS information event in Madrid -  co-organized by the Ministry de Industria, Turismo, y  Comercio, CDTI, PROMETEO
(23 March 2011);

-
Support of National events in Sweden and Finland through material and mailing to Brokerage participants via ARTEMIS Industry
Association.

On 14 June 2011 ARTEMIS JU took part in the ARTEMISIA Summer Camp – a
high-level strategic meeting defining the R&D agenda in embedded systems in
Europe.

After the summer break, the ARTEMIS Technology
Conference 2011 took place from 12 to 13 September 2011 in Bologna. The preparations started in the previous months with a registration website,
registration, badges and logistics – PR material was shipped to the venue. The
Executive Director delivered the keynote speech at the Conference. The
Conference itself was perceived as successful. The event was announced in the
ARTEMIS Magazine 10 and through e-mailings to the relevant target group in the
database of the Industry Association. This public, open event, organised by the
ARTEMIS-JU Call 2008 SOFIA project, was hosted and co-organised by the University of Bologna and Indra Sistemas S.A. The conference gave three running 2008 &
2009 Call projects - SOFIA, SMARCOS & CHIRON, the valuable chance to
present their results to an international audience of colleagues in the same
field, to get critical feedback on the presented ideas and to network with
people who share similar interests. The event was attended by 65 people from 6
European countries. A student Corner was included in the demo area. This was a
fruitful event with attendees from Austria, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Spain and The Netherlands, ensuring further discussion outside the conference and new and
further multi-project collaboration.

On 27
September 2011, the Conference on Nanoelectronics
and Embedded Systems for Electric Mobility “Auto.E-Motion”, took place in Graz, Austria. The conference focused on the nanoelectronics and embedded systems
technologies for electric mobility applications and their impact on the future
of electric and hybrid electric vehicles. The ARTEMIS projects POLLUX and
Internet of Energy (IoE) organized this conference, together with their ENIAC
counterpart. ARTEMIS Magazine gave visibility to this event in publication 11.

One of the significant communication
activities throughout the year was the participation of ARTEMIS at the Innovation
in action event of the 5 Joint Technology Initiatives in Brussels on 4-6
October 2011. This event was the first joint event of the 5 JTIs and
took place in the venue of the EP. It included a poster and stand exhibition
surrounded by conference sessions. The theme of this
joint JTI event was ‘Innovation in Action’ and featured an overview of the key
achievements of all five JTIs, as well as presentations by high-level policy makers
from the European Parliament and Commission.  It was hosted by MEP Maria Da
Graça Carvalho, with parallel “Thematic Sessions” proposed by each JU. As for
ARTEMIS one, it was sponsored by MEP Lambert Van Nistelrooij. The event was felt to be very successful in Brussels, although
results are expected on a long term perspective. Meanwhile ARTEMIS has got
visibility, for example, in the e-journal Science and Business and on
the Portugese national television. A report on the event was published in the
ARTEMIS Magazine 11.

The peak of the
events was the ARTEMIS-ITEA2 Co-Summit 2011 –
Helsinki, which took place on 25 and 26
October 2011. This annual event, with ARTEMIS presentations and an
exhibition space for 34 presently running projects, is organised together with ITEA 2. It is by far the biggest event to
organise for ARTEMIS, as an important showcase of the ARTEMIS projects to the
ARTEMIS community and the public authorities. As done  in 2010, a "student
day" was also organised this year, this time in cooperation with
TEKES. Extra ARTEMIS actions were involved such as the SME-ARCADIA/SYSMODEL
round table meeting. The project eSONIA was granted the ARTEMIS prize for best
exhibition stand, where the main criterion is the clarity of the presentation
of the work being done and the results achieved. The set-up of the ARTEMIS
exhibition appeared to be very successful and should continue during next
summits.

Publications

-
During the year, ARTEMIS published also several
information brochures on the ongoing and the future calls for proposals, and
three numbers of the quarterly ARTEMIS Magazine.

-
Interaction with the press occurred mainly via
press releases and arranged interviews on different topics – briefings on the
Co-Summit and on the ARTEMIS Brokerage event, an informative release on the
submitted proposals in the 2011 call, etc.

Apart from the ARTEMIS magazine that
contains interviews to key people in the embedded systems area, the following
events were reported:

January to June 2011:

o
The pre-announcement for the ARTEMIS Proposers
Day was wired to the press database;

o
A press conference to announce the ARTEMIS
message and launch of the call took place on 2 December in Nuremberg during
ARTEMIS Spring Event: 14 journalists attended the press meeting;

o
A press corner was produced on the website with
the relevant information in it;

o
A press release of ARTEMIS project SYSMODEL was
distributed;

o
An interview with ARTEMIS project SCALOPES was
arranged and will be published in ARTEMIS Magazine and on the websites of
SCALOPES and ARTEMIS.

o
The press meeting took place during the ARTEMIS
Spring Event, attended by 14 journalists.

o
A press release of the ARTEMIS SRA launch was
distributed.

o
A press meeting on the SRA was organised with
participation of the Executive Director, Chair, Secretary General, SRA
co-chair. An interview was arranged with one of the SRA experts.

July to December 2011:

o
The pre-announcement for the Co-summit was wired
to the press database

o
The ARTEMIS SRA message was wired to the press
database

o
The invitation and programme for the Co-summit
2011 were wired to the press

o
Four press releases have been sent out: on JTI
event, Co-summit (pre-press release & post press release)
ANDARTEMIS-Brokerage Event in which the Call 2012 is pre-announced.

o
JTI event got exposure in Science &
Business (twice) and Portuguese television.

o
At the Co-summit, a press programme and event
have been organised. The press present at the Co-summit 2011 was:

Country                       Publication

Belgium                        Datanews (
published)

Czech Republic            Elektronika
(article expected)

Finland             Freelance journalist writing
for multiple Publications (published)

Italy                              News Impresa
(published)

Netherlands                  Technologiekrant / de
Ingenieur (published)

Norway                        Peak magazine
(article expected in January 2012)

Pan-European              Parliament & Research Magazine
(article expected)

Sweden                        Elektronik Norden
(article expected)

Germany                      SafeTrans (article published)

o
In the last months of 2011, a Call 2012 brochure
was realised and presented to the NCPs, Brokerage participants, ARTEMIS members,
EC, JU office etc.

Besides, the web site (http://www.artemis-ju.eu)
has been an important tool for the ARTEMIS JU for publishing its objectives and
announcements on the calls, but also for providing up-to-date information to
the stakeholders.  The Undertaking also improved it visual identity, by
re-designing its logo.

4.3.        Call
implementation

Calls for proposals

The ARTEMIS JU supports R&D activities
through open and competitive calls for proposals published on a yearly
basis, to attract the best European research ideas and capacities in the field
of embedded computing systems. The ARTEMIS JU manages and coordinates research
activities through a 7-year, € 2.5 billion research programme on embedded
computing systems. The programme is open to organisations in the EU Member
States and Associated Countries. Selected projects are co-financed by the Joint
Undertaking and the Member States that have joined ARTEMIS. The ARTEMIS JU
implements significant parts of the ARTEMIS–ETP Strategic Research Agenda
co-funded by industry, research organisations, Member States and the
Commission's own ICT programme.

ARTEMIS applies a two-stage procedure:
proposers must first submit Project Outlines (POs), followed by the
submission of Full Project Proposals (FPPs). The submission of an
eligible PO is mandatory for the submission of a FPP. Projects are selected for
funding based on the quality of this document. The evaluation criteria and
sub-criteria, including weights and thresholds, and the selection and award
criteria are set out in the ARTEMIS Annual Work Programme 2011. They are
introduced in the next paragraphs:

4.3.1.     Evaluation
of Project Outline

The Project Outline will be assessed on the basis of the following
criteria:

1.
Relevance to the topic(s) of the work programme
in a given call and to the objectives of a call.

2.
Relevance and contribution to the overall
ARTEMIS targets.

3.
Soundness of the concept.

4.
Clarity and quality of the objectives and
expected results.

5.
Contribution, at the European and/or
international level, to the expected impacts listed in the Work-programme under
the relevant sub-programme.

6.
Degree of application-innovation in the context
of the sub-programmes addressed.

7.
Expected market impact of the results for the
industrial partners.

8.
Quality of the consortium as a whole including
complementarities, balance and involvement of SMEs.

4.3.2.     Evaluation
of Full Project Proposal

The evaluation
criteria against which full project proposals will be judged are set out in the
document ARTEMISPAB-4-08: "ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking selection and
evaluation procedures related to Calls for proposals". They are listed in
the table below:

№ || Evaluation criterion || Score || Weight || Threshold

1. || Relevance and contributions to the objectives of the call || 1-10 || 1 || 6

2. || R&D innovation and technical excellence || 1-10 || 1 || 6

3. || S&T approach and work plan || 1-10 || 1 || 6

4. || Market innovation and market impact || 1-10 || 2 || 6

5. || Quality of consortium and management || 1-10 || 1 || N/A

|| Total score: || /60 || 40/60

Proposals
submitted to ARTEMIS JU calls undergo a technical evaluation and
selections process carried out with the assistance of independent experts. This
process ensures that allocation of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking's public
funding follows the principles of equal treatment, excellence and competition.

Funding for ARTEMIS projects follows a unique
tripartite model. Much of the funding is provided to the partners by their
own government or regional agency, with whom a grant agreement is set up. The
ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking also provides funding directly to the partners to the
amount of 16.7% of their eligible costs. This funding model has been working
well in the first years of the Joint Undertaking, but with certain limitations
– mainly due to the strongly reduced level of commitments from the Member
States in the context of the economic and financial crisis.

The ARTEMIS JU
managed its fourth call for proposals in 2011 as planned. It was launched on 1
March 2011 and the negotiations have started on 8 December 2011. Since the
outcome of the negotiations was planned for January 2012, the definitive list
of grant agreements signed under this call will be presented next year.

4.4.        Call
4 ARTEMIS-2011-1

4.4.1.     Summary information

Call Identifier || ARTEMIS-2011-1

Publication date || 1 March 2011

Deadline for submission of Project Outlines (POs) - Stage 1 || 31 March 2011

Evaluation of Project Outlines - Stage 1 || 30 May 2011

Deadline for submission of Full Project Proposals - Stage 2 || 1 September 2011

Evaluation of Full Project Proposals  - Stage 2 || 3-7 October 2011

Negotiation || From December 2011

Indicative Total budget (in €) || € 72.423 million

EU contribution after evaluation || Not available

In-kind contribution after evaluation || Not available

Where relevant, the contribution from the Member States or National funding, or other contributions || €  46.725 million

Number of topics / Artemis Sub Programmes || 4 main topics – 8 sub programmes

Reference to call topics || http://www.artemis-ju.eu/call2011

The results from
projects following the 2011 call were expected to demonstrate their
contribution to the ARTEMIS JU high-level objectives set out below. ARTEMIS set
an over-arching objective to close the design productivity gap between
potential and capability, as a necessary pre-requisite to advancing Europe's competitive position on the world market:

-
Reduce the cost of the system design from 2005
levels by 15% by 2013;

-
Achieve 15% reduction in development cycles,
especially in sectors requiring qualification or certification – by 2013;

-
Manage a complexity increase of 25% with 10%
effort reduction by 2013;

-
Reduce the effort and time required for
re-validation and recertification after change by 15% by 2013;

-
Achieve cross-sectoral reusability of embedded
systems devices developed using the ARTEMIS JU results.

The ARTEMIS call for proposals 2011 had to
address the design, development and deployment of ubiquitous, interoperable and
cost-effective, powerful, safe and secure electronics and software systems. It
should deliver on three industrial priorities: i) Reference
designs and architectures, ii) Seamless connectivity and middleware, and iii)
Design methods and tools.

In addition to the industrial priorities,
ARTEMIS JU proposals had to fit into one of the 8 specific ARTEMIS
Sub-Programme (ASP) priorities for 2011, which were determined
in the ARTEMIS Annual Work Programme for 2011 as follows:

-
ASP1. Methods and processes for safety-relevant
embedded systems;

-
ASP2. Embedded Systems for Healthcare systems;

-
ASP3. Embedded Systems for Smart environments;

-
ASP4. Manufacturing and production automation;

-
ASP5. Computing platforms for embedded systems;

-
ASP6. ES for Security and Critical
Infrastructures Protection;

-
ASP7. Embedded technology for sustainable urban
life;

-
ASP8. Human-centred design of embedded systems.

The total
budget for the call included an indicative ARTEMIS JU contribution of €
25.69 million and contributions from the Member States estimated at €
46.725 million. The exact commitment by Member State is shown in the table
below:

ARTEMIS JU Member States (M€) ||

|| Austria || 3 || Hungary || 0

|| Belgium || 2.5 || Ireland || 1

|| Cyprus || 0 || Italy || 5

|| Czech Republic || 1.1 || Latvia || 0.075

|| Germany || 8 || Netherlands || 4

|| Denmark || 1.3 || Norway || 1.5

|| Estonia || 0.3 || Portugal || 0

|| Spain || 4 || Romania || 0

|| Finland || 6 || Sweden || 3

|| France || 2 || Slovenia || 0.75

|| Greece || 0 || United Kingdom || 3.2

4.4.2.     Analysis of proposals submitted

The PO phase yielded 41 proposals,
all satisfying the eligibility criteria. They were reviewed and feedback was
given to the applicants. For the FPP phase, 27 proposals were received
by 1 September 2011 and the evaluations were completed in October 2011.

4.4.2.1.  Stage 1 – Project Outlines

In total, 41 eligible POs have been
submitted for evaluation. The total individual participations are
presented in the figure below. The total number of participants is 667 (including
656 participants from ARTEMIS member states).

Participation by
Partner Type (Large Enterprise – LE, SME or Public research organisation –
PRO) was hampered at this stage by the necessity to use unverified,
self-declaration of the partner type as submitted. The
data for the proposals eligible for evaluation of the PO phase are detailed in
the following chart:

With regard to geographical distribution of the POs, 29
countries took part in the first stage of the call. The participation in each of the ARTEMIS Member States (AMS) can be
found in the table below. In addition, participations were proposed from Poland[57], Russia, Turkey and the USA. The Total Costs of these non-ARTEMIS Member State partners was roughly €4.9
million.

The total costs proposed are €454.4 M,
with a requested National funding of €157.4 M requested, which gives a general
over-subscription of 3,73 times over the available National commitments of €42.2
M. This oversubscription is in line with the general expectation. In terms of
EFTA contribution, it represented € 1,023,400.00 for the operational credits
allocated to the call 2011[58].

As a comparison between Call 2011
and Call 2010, the major reduction in the Member States' commitments to this call
– a drop of 30% - has resulted in an even more severe drop in the number of POs
submitted. However, the equivalent drop in number of participations and the
corresponding total costs indicates that the community has responded by
applying greater focus on the scale of their activity, in order to improve
their chance of selection and funding. This is borne out by comparing the
average size of the projects in the POs: the average size (total cost) of a PO has increased by 13% compared to 2010, with the budget per participation remaining
roughly constant.

As a tool to help the participating
ARTEMIS Member States in preparing their budget allocations, and also to
provide valuable feedback for monitoring the programme, the assessors have been
requested to evaluate the relative maturity of each project outline,
classifying them on a scale of 1 ("very mature") to 4 ("below
average"): MI=3 is regarded as "average" while MI=2 is
"strong"). This Maturity Index (MI) information was given only
to the PAB members, and not distributed to the proposers or otherwise outside
the JU. The
distribution of the MI for all 41 proposals is shown below. The distribution shows a distinct peak at MI=3, which is perfectly
normal (MI=3 is the “average, to be expected” value).

The experts were also asked to
assess the participation of SME in the proposals, via a SME index, with
the following results. The ARTEMIS programme has no
difficulty in attracting SMEs with useful contributions. Participants are well
aware that one of the evaluation criteria is to address SME engagement (only 6
out of 41 proposals (around15%) are not addressing the SME engagement at all).
The distribution of MI vs. SME index is homogenous, with a slight bias towards
MI=4 of the weaker SME-engagement proposals (SME index=C).

4.4.2.2.  Stage 2 – Full Project
Proposals

Out of the 41 POs, 27 FPPs were
successfully submitted by the deadline. As anticipated, all of the “MI=1” proposals from the PO phase have been submitted and 3
of the “MI=4” proposals have been submitted.

In terms of geographical distribution,
a total of 22 countries took part at the second
stage of the call:

-
The submitted proposals have partners from 18
ARTEMIS Member States (AMS), though there is no participation in four AMS
(CY, EL, IE, RO). Besides, there are 2 participations in AMS who had not
committed a budget (HU, PT). This indicates a strong will to participate in
those countries.

-
In addition to participations in ARTEMIS Member
States (which includes Norway – an Associated State of the FP7), there are 2
participations in Associated States (TR and PL, who is a candidate AMS).

-
There are two non-EU partners in the
proposals (RU – St Petersburg University, who have long expressed
interest in collaboration with ARTEMIS projects and General Motors in the USA).

The Total
Requested costs in the proposals is €370.245 M, with a request of €127.438
M funding from the National budgets. The Over-Subscription Rate
(OSR) on National Budgets is therefore 2,79.

The following charts, tables and explanations
give an overview of the participation in the 2011 Call in terms of its
contribution to the programme.

-
About Maturity index of the PO, as found in the FPP submitted: the table shows that feedback to the
participants on the estimated Maturity index of their project may have resulted
in a reduced number of “average” and “weak” proposals (MI=3 and 4 respectively)
that are re-submitted as FPPs.

-
The total requested cost per Member State and per partner type are detailed in the following table.

-
Participation
in the second
stage of the ARTEMIS 2011 call per partner type is represented here
below:

Requested national funding during the second stage of the
ARTEMIS 2011 call. All proposals before evaluation are presented in the table
below.

4.4.3.     Evaluation
procedure

27 Full Project Proposals submitted for the Call 2011 were evaluated. All satisfied the
eligibility criteria for FPP. The evaluation was conducted according to the
rules described in the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking selection and evaluation
procedures related to calls for proposals. The 27 FPPs were submitted to a
group of 49 independent experts as per the defined remote evaluation
procedures.

The
resulting individual evaluation reports were consolidated into Evaluation
Summary Reports (ESR) and an ordered list was established through a panel
meeting, held in Brussels from 3 to 7 of October 2011.The ESRs were each reviewed by the Executive Director, who
would also ensure consistency of the quality of the ESR and more generally
acted as a fine-grained filter quality control. The consistency of the results
so achieved gives a very high level of confidence in the quality of the
technical selection process.

Out
of the 27 Full Project Proposals, 16 proposals
were evaluated above threshold (40 points minimum on a maximum of 60)
and 11 proposals below threshold.

4.4.4.     Evaluation results

Further to the
evaluation, the ranking list has been presented to the PAB for discussion
during the meeting of 25 October 2011. A selection decision was taken the same
day, following eligibility checks performed by the national authorities.
Mandate for negotiation was given to the Executive Director, for eight
proposals and a ninth project was put on a reserve list. The
remaining 7 projects were deemed not feasible financially.

Overall, the
Public Authorities Board allocated €63.4 million of public funds to 8 projects
with a total eligible cost of €133.2 million and €22.2 million of Union
funding.

Within
this group of projects under negotiation, the average number of partners is
24.6, and the average number of countries in each is 7.63 (10 maximum, 5
minimum).

Regarding
the partners per project:

·
Increasing number of countries involved in a
project (maximum is 10, minimum -4, Average – 7.3).  The following figure shows
the number of countries per project.

·
Medium to large initiatives with number of
partners ranging between 17 and 31. The following figure show the partner
types per project, in the 8 successful projects.

The figure below presents the relative
split of partner type based on the number of participants. It can be observed
that all projects invited for negotiations have a good balance among SMEs
(31%), LEs and academic institutions.

Regarding costs, to be noted: a balanced
distribution of the costs among medium and large size projects (having between
10% and 19% of the total costs each) with only one project that could be
considered as relatively small (5%) in costs, but not as potential impact.

General overview of the full process (from
submission to selection for funding) is summed up in the table below.

4.5.        Project Portfolio

4.5.1.    
Grant agreements signed or under negotiation

ARTEMIS – 2010-1 || Number || Total costs (€) || Total national funding (€) || Artemis JU contribution (€) || Additional own resources(€)

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || 10 ||  € 167,451,747 || € 54,938,050 || € 27,964,442 || € 84,549,255

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

TOTAL || 10 ||  € 167,451,747 || € 54,938,050 || € 27,964,442 || € 84,549,255

The complete list is
provided with further details in annex 16.

ARTEMIS-2011-1 || Number || Total costs (€) || Total national funding (€) || Artemis JU contribution (€) || Additional own resources(€)

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Sub-Total (Proposals in Negotiation) || 9 || € 142,111,772.38 || € 45,194,850.71 || € 23,668,871.97 || € 73,248,049.70

TOTAL || 9 || € 142,111,772.38 || € 45,194,850.71 || € 23,668,871.97 || € 73,248,049.70

The decision
giving the Executive Director the mandate to negotiate the top-8 ranked
projects was adopted at the PAB meeting on 7 December 2011. The consortia were invited to
negotiate the signature of the grant agreements. The
complete list is provided with further details in annex 17.

4.5.2.     Project
reviews

Project review of the projects signed under
past calls and for which activities are still ongoing (12 for call 2008 and 12
for 2009) is reported in annex 18.

4.5.3.     Grant
agreements for which activities have ended and/or final results are available

Final results from 3 grants signed during
previous calls are already available.

GA № || Date GA signed || Project Acronym || Project title || Initial requested funding/ Total costs ||

100029 || 29/05/2009 || SCALOPES || Common Embedded Security InfRAstructure SCAlable LOw Power Embedded platformS || € 36,059,013.19 ||

100008 || 12/11/2009 || CAMMI || Cognitive Adaptive Man-Machine Interface || € 7,315,506.00 ||

100204 || 01/06/2010 || pSHIELD || Pilot embedded Systems arcHItecturE for multi-Layer Dependable solutions || € 5,392,809.07 ||

The SCALOPES project held its final review in Brussels on 29 March 2011. This is the
first ARTEMIS project that is ending. It started in January 2009 with duration
of 2 years (+3 months extension) with participation of 36 partners from 11
countries.

Despite its short
duration and many administrative difficulties, the project delivered the
results to prove that it meets the initial goals (reduced power consumption
combined with increased performance for a variety of applications). The
technological innovations comprise of horizontally structured multi-domain
solutions, platforms for real-time data processing and methods for high
productivity software development. A final report is available. During the
review there were several impressive demonstrations that illustrated these
achievements.

In summary, the project
enables an industrially sustainable path for the evolution of low-power,
multi-core computing platforms for application domains with strategic value for
European competitiveness.

Two more projects,
CAMMI and pSHIELD ended in December 2011. Information on their respective
reviews is provided in the project review, in annex 18. The innovative output
of these projects was the following:

The Camni project provided innovative solutions for intelligent multi-modal
interactive systems:

-
Cognitive Monitor: To monitor human cognitive
state through operator and performance data acquisition and data processing, in
order to optimize MMI interactions through workload mitigation methods.

-
Workload Mitigator: To assess and manage the
measured cognitive state in order to understand any mismatch between the
operator's current workload and the operational situation and to select the
correct automatic MMI adaptation strategy.

-
Adaptive MMI: Implementation of workload-related
adaptive strategies in order to trigger levels of automation assistance in
multiple task and critical situations.

The pSHIELD is a pilot project aimed at addressing Security, Privacy and
Dependability (SPD) in the context of Embedded Systems (ESs) as "built in"
rather than as "add-on" functionalities, proposing and perceiving
with this strategy the first step toward SPD certification for future ES. The
leading concept is to demonstrate composability of SPD technologies.

Starting from current
SPD solutions in ESs, the project developed new technologies and consolidated
the available ones in a solid basement basis that would become the reference
milestone for a new generation of "SPD-ready" ESs. SHIELD would
approach SPD at 4 different levels (node, network, middleware and overlay). For
each level, the state of the art in SPD of single technologies and solutions
will be improved and integrated (hardware and communication technologies,
cryptography, middleware, smart SPD applications, etc.).

The SPD technologies
will be enhanced with composable functionality, in order to fit in the SHIELD
architectural framework. The composability of SHIELD architectural framework
would have great impact on the system design costs and time to market of new
SPD solutions in ESs. At the same time, the integrated use of SPD metrics in
the SHIELD framework would have impact on the development cycles of SPD in ESs
because the qualification, (re-) certification and (re-) validation process of
a SHIELD framework instance would be faster, easier and widely accepted.

[1] According to Article 1 of the Clean Sky's Statutes, the Integrated
Technology Demonstrators (ITDs) refer to the six technological areas
covered by the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.

[2] The founding ITD leaders of the Clean Sky JU are: Agusta-Westland,
Airbus, Alenia, Dassault Aviation, EADS-CASA, Eurocopter, Fraunhofer Gesellschaft,
Liebherr, Rolls-Royce, SAAB, Safran and Thales.

[3] In 2001, the Advisory Council for Aeronautical Research in
Europe (ACARE) set the following targets for the aeronautics
industry by 2020: 50% reductions of the fuel consumption and the carbon dioxide
emissions, 80% reduction of the nitrous oxides emissions, 50% reduction of the
perceived external noise and improvement of the environmental impact of the
lifecycle of aircraft and related products.

[4] Europe in this context refers to the EU Member States and the
countries associated to the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union
(2007-2013), i.e. Switzerland, Israel, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Turkey, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Faroe Islands (December 2010).

[5] Decision 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European
Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities
(2007-2013), OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

[6] A special edition of Skyline informed citizens
about the unique process followed and the general outputs of the first
assessment (June 2012), available on Clean Sky website

[7] In system engineering, a trade-off study is a simultaneous
consideration of multiple alternatives at a point in the design process where a
decision needs to be made.

[8] Non-exhaustive list

[9] TRL: Technology Readiness Level. A scale of level of maturity of a
technology used to compare and evaluate the different stages of development of
a technology. TRL 6 is the maximum level for R&T projects, before the
product development phase.

[10] COM(2011)572

[11]  http://www.cleansky.eu/

[12] To read the full interview: http://www.cleansky.eu/content/interview/focus-sme-cenaero-belgium

[13] To read the full interview: http://www.cleansky.eu/content/interview/focus-400th-participant.

[14] Annex 2: Full topics overview: CS JU
call 7 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05).

[15] Explanation of acronyms: REC – Research Centre; HSE – Higher or
Secondary Education; SME – Small Medium Enterprise; PRC – Private Companies;
PUB – Public Body; OTH - Other

[16] For both PUB and OTH, current tables show zero because the initial allocation
to the first four categories of all participants; according to that selection,
this is still valid and will be revised only if some new case is presented
where a more appropriate allocation to either PUB or OTH is necessary. For
statistical purpose, we deem the current attributions are correct.

[17]  Annex 4: Full topics overview: CS JU
call 8 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01).

[18] Refer to footnotes 6 and 7

[19]  Annex 6. CS JU call 9 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02). Topics overview

[20] Refer to notes 6 and 7

[21] Annex 8:CS JU call 10 (SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03). Topics overview

[22] –Refer to notes 6 and 7

[23] EFPIA's mission is to promote pharmaceutical research and
development in Europe and to create a favourable economic, regulatory and
political environment, enabling the research-based pharmaceutical industry to
meet the growing healthcare needs and expectations of patients. In 2010, the
members of EFPIA comprise of 31 European national pharmaceutical associations and
38 companies undertaking research, development and manufacturing of medicinal
products for human use.

[24] Europe in this context refers to the EU Member States and the
countries associated to the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union
(2007-2013), i.e. Switzerland, Israel, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Turkey, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Albania and Montenegro.

[25] The full report is available on the IMI website: http://www.imi.europa.eu/content/documents#imi\_governance

[26]1. Building up a European Medical Information Framework (EMIF) of
patient-level data to support a wide range of medical research. This Call theme
consists of three topics: i. Information Framework / Knowledge Management
Service Layer, ii. Metabolic complications of obesity, iii. Protective and
precipitating markers for the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other
dementias. 2.eTRIKS: European Translational Information & Knowledge
Management Services, Chemistry, Manufacturing and Control.3.Delivery and
targeting mechanisms for biological macromolecules.4. In vivo predictive biopharmaceutics
tools for oral drug delivery. 5. Sustainable Chemistry – delivering medicines
for the 21st century Technology and Molecular Disease Understanding. 6. Human
Induced Pluripotent Stem (hiPS) Cells for drug discovery and safety assessment.
7. Understanding and optimising binding kinetics in drug discovery

[27] The New Energy World Industry Grouping "Fuel Cell and Hydrogen
for Sustainability" (NEW-IG) is a non-profit association open to
industrial companies dealing with fuel cell and hydrogen R&D activities in
Europe, including the EU Member States, the countries in the European Economic
Area and the EU associate and candidate countries. By the end of 2011, the
Industry Grouping had 60 members. They varied from micro companies to large
enterprises from across the fuel cells and hydrogen
value chain..

[28] The N.ERGHY Research Grouping is a non-profit association
representing the research community in Europe. The objective of N.ERGHY is to
promote, support and accelerate the research and deployment process of fuel
cell and hydrogen technology in Europe from the point of view of the research
community. By the end of 2011, the Research Grouping had 66 research institutes
and universities as members.

[29] The European Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan has
identified fuel cells and hydrogen among the technologies needed for Europe to
achieve the 2020 Energy and Climate Change goals – 20% reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions, 20% share of renewable energy sources in the energy mix and 20%
reduction in primary energy use, as well as to achieve the long-term vision for
2050 towards decarbonisation [Communication from the Commission of 22
November 2007, COM (2007) 723 final].

[30] Based on the evaluation results of the Call for Proposals 2011.

[31] Based on the Consensus report for research projects established by
the evaluators to rank the proposals. The scoring used for this indicator is
good to excellent

[32] Based on the evaluation results of the Call for Proposals 2011.

[33] On finished projects (not all projects will be finished by 2013).

[34] The number of finished projects in 2011 (5 finished projects) is
not representative.

[35] Based on the Consensus report for research projects established by
the evaluators to rank the proposals. The scoring used for this indicator is
good to excellent

[36] Based on the evaluation results of the Call for Proposals 2011.

[37] On finished projects (not all projects will be finished by 2013).

[38] Based on the funding granted under the 2010 Call for Proposals,
including SMEs.

[39] Based on funding granted  to SMEs in projects

[40] Based on the projects funded under the 2010 Call for Proposals.

[41] OJ L 302, 19.11.2011, p.3, http://www.fch-ju.eu/sites/default/files/amendment%20to%20council%20regulation.pdf

[42] The pdf presentations of all the projects are available at

http://www.fch-ju.eu/prpage/programme-review-22-november-2011-programme

[43] This event was web-streamed and all presentations are
available at

http://webcast.ec.europa.eu/eutv/portal/archive.html?viewConference=13475.

[44] The report published on 20 May is available on the web

(http://www.fch-ju.eu/sites/default/files/EvalFuelCellHydroReport2011\_ALLBROCHURE\_WEB.pdf)

[45]  www.fch-ju.eu

[46] The pdf presentations of all the projects are available at

http://www.fch-ju.eu/prpage/programme-review-22-november-2011-programme

[47] This event was web-streamed and all presentations are
available at

 http://webcast.ec.europa.eu/eutv/portal/archive.html?viewConference=13475.

[48] For more information, please visit http://www.adel-energy.eu/workshop-electrolysis-concept.html

[49] http://chic-project.eu/

[50]The funding includes the FCH JU's own budget only. The final total
funding for projects is to be increased by EFTA contributions (up to €2.3 M).

[51]The funding includes the FCH JU's own budget only. The final total
funding for projects is to be increased by EFTA contributions (up to €2.3 M).

[52] Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark,
Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia and the United
Kingdom.

[53] The ARTEMIS Industrial Association (ARTEMIS-IA) was established in
January 2007 in the Netherlands by five companies: Philips, ST
Microelectronics, Thales, Nokia and DaimlerChrysler. It represents the
interests of the industry and the research community within the ARTEMIS Joint
Undertaking.

[54] First interim evaluation of the ARTEMIS and
ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives COM(2010) 752 final
of 16.12.2010

[55] First Interim Evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Technology
Initiatives,

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information\_society/evaluation/rtd/jti/artemis\_and\_eniac\_evaluation\_report\_final.pdf

[56] COM(2010) 752

[57] Poland joined the ARTEMIS Member Sates later, in December 2011.

[58] Source: SINCOM data from budget appropriation BGUE-B2011-09.040102-C1-CE
that corresponds to the operational credits for the ARTEMIS JU for 2010.

[Top](#document1)