[Return to Minutes of the NITC]
[Download minutes (3.5MB Word
file)]
Meeting Minutes
National Intelligent Truck Consortium (NITC)
Workshop
Garden Plaza Hotel
215 South Illinois Avenue
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
September 16, 1998
8:30 am - 4:00 pm
Gary Capps welcomed everyone, introduced the speakers, and reviewed the agenda. (See Appendix 1 for agenda) Thirty-nine people attended the workshop. (See Appendix 2 for list of attendees.)
Bill Kneé presented information regarding the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative. (See Appendix 3 for viewgraphs.)
Jeff Muhs presented information on the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative with an emphasis on commercial vehicle operations. (See Appendix 4 for viewgraphs.)
Gary Capps presented information regarding the NITC. (See Appendix 5 for viewgraphs.)
He explained the goals of the workshop as follows:
He presented the following view of the NITC:
The NITC is a consortium of industry, academia, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory with a primary mission to integrate existing technology into an open architecture system with a single graphical user interface suitable for commercial vehicles. Within this direction, exists the opportunity and need for research and development, future integration of emerging technology, potential definition of needed infrastructure and technology and policy/institutional changes.
He stated that in order to begin and to continue in this direction, funding will need to be established.
He stated that he believed the goals could best be achieved by focusing on the first session's efforts on the five ITS defined user services and two emerging potential user services, listed below, as they both relate to the generational approach presented by Jeff Muhs. In particular what is achievable for "Generation 0" integration of existing technology.
Recommended User Services
Emerging User Services (Industry Driven)
The focus areas for the first breakout session included:
Session I - User Services Teams
1. Accident Prevention
a. Driver Condition Monitoring
b. Forward Collision & Lane Departure Warning
c. Vehicle Stability
2. Vehicle Diagnostics & Prognostics
3. Human Interface Standardization
4. Mobile Services and Information Systems (MSI)
He proposed the following implementation plan:
| Phase | Gen 0 | Gen 1 | Gen 2 |
| Years | 1999 - 2001 | 2000 - 2003 | 2002 - 2006 |
| Operational Focus |
Warning | Assistance | Control |
| Technical Emphasis |
Integration | Emerging
Technology Development |
R&D |
Gary asked the workshop members to consider the following vehicle/driver elements during their working breakout sessions:
Based on the expected NITC phased implementation approach Gary discussed earlier, he asked the workshop attendees to determine what aspects of the selected user services that they felt could be realistically achievable (could be developed, integrated, and implemented) in a three-year, "Generation 0," field operational test. He asked that they then outline the steps necessary to achieve this specific portion of the overall operational test and determine who the likely industry team leaders should be for the particular User Service. And finally, he asked the workshop members to generate a short statement that describes the expected outcome that is envisioned for this particular user service.
The first breakout session detailed objectives and structure were given by Gary Capps as follows:
Team 1 Accident Prevention Leader: Kathy
Gambrell (ORNL)
Several technologies and systems exist or are being developed
to prevent accidents involving commercial vehicles. Accident
prevention technologies that currently exist will be the focus
for "Generation 0". Additionally, the Intelligent
Vehicle Initiative/Commercial Vehicle Platform has named driver
condition monitoring, collision & lane departure avoidance,
and real-time vehicle stability/control as key pathways to
enhancing commercial vehicle safety. Below is a summary of what
IVI-CVO envisions for each of the above:
Driver Condition Warning/Monitoring
This service would provide a driver monitoring and warning
capability to alert the driver to problems, such as drowsiness or
other types of impairments.
Collision & Lane Departure Avoidance
Longitudinal collision avoidance would sense the presence and
speed of vehicles and objects in front of the equipped vehicle
and would provide warnings and potential limited control of the
vehicle speed (coasting, downshifting, or braking) to minimize
risk of collisions with vehicles and objects in the vehicle's
lane of travel. Lane departure would also provide warning and
control assistance to the driver through lane or road edge
tracking and by determining the safe speed for road geometry in
front of the vehicle.
Vehicle Stability/Control
This service would assist drivers in maintaining safe speeds
on curves by measuring the rollover stability properties of a
typical heavy vehicle as it is operated on the roadway, and by
providing the driver with a graphical depiction of the vehicle's
loading condition relative to its rollover propensity. More
advanced services could employ an active brake control system to
stabilize the vehicle.
Specific Goals: Provide and prioritize a list of recommended technologies. Suggest an importance of each technology for CVO on a scale of 1 to 5.
Team 2 Vehicle Diagnostics/Prognostics
Leader: Bob Schilling (ORNL)
The vehicle diagnostic information service would be an extension
of current vehicle monitoring and self-diagnostic capabilities,
such as oil pressure and coolant temperature gauges. This service
would monitor vehicle safety-related functions. Examples of
conditions monitored include braking system integrity, tire
pressure, sensor and actuator performance, and the communication
system. This information is intended to be useful to the driver,
as well as to assist and support fleet predictive maintenance and
management functions. For the "Generation 0" NITC
system, consideration should be given to the inclusion of the
monitoring of the new integrated technology systems.
Specific Goals: Provide a list of parameters not currently monitored or reported on the J1939 data bus that should be considered for inclusion in the NITC bus. Review the ability of the J1939 data bus to be the IDB. Make a specific recommendation.
Team 3 Human Interface Standardization
Leader: Bill Kneé (ORNL)
It has been the contention of ORNL and other consortium members
that the management and presentation of information meant for the
driver is a key element in the integration of the intelligent
truck. A single graphical user interface (SGUI) has been
suggested as a way to centralize information, prioritize the
information, frame the message into a presentation based on
principles of good human factors, and focus the driver onto one
display rather than one for each intelligent device. There are
industry groups who are dedicated to various aspects of
driver/vehicle interface. These aspects are message
standardization, visual presentation, audible presentation,
driving mode software compliance, and physical interaction. The
NITC has the opportunity to serve in the role of integrator of
all of the aspects of driver/vehicle interface, and hopefully
will have the opportunity to deploy and demonstrate fully
integrated systems.
Specific Goals: Review the framework and recommendations to date of the SAE ITS Driver Interface task force, and make recommendations to modify (if needed) and support this effort. Consider Human Factors Elements during this session.
Team 4 Mobile Systems and Information
Services Leader: Lara Baughman (Navigation Technologies)
Mobile Services and Information systems, (MSI) are generally
services provided the driver from the world outside the vehicle.
These services have been developed primarily for the passenger
car, but have usefulness for commercial vehicles as well. These
services include Route Guidance, Travel Information and
Assistance, Emergency Assistance, Business Services, and Real
Time Traffic Information. These services are only recently and
sporadically available, and are in the early stages of rollout.
Therefore, there is room to add the specific needs of commercial
vehicles to the list of driver needs being developed by the
providers of these services. The NITC has the opportunity to help
formulate the content of these services if a concerted effort is
made to gain the attention of the service providers. The NITC
must also pay attention to the Human Factor issues that are
raised by the availability of these services. Human Factor issues
for commercial vehicles are not always the same as those for
passenger vehicles. Prioritization of messages and integration
with information being presented to the driver from inside the
vehicle, and over the wireless communication channel must also be
taken into account.
Specific Goals: Review the MSI technologies from the TRB workshop, and determine which are interesting to the CVO community, and what new ones should be added.
Breakout Session I Reports User Services as Applied to "Generation 0"
All attendees participated in one of the four groups. The first breakout session lasted approximately 1.5 hours. Each team leader reported on their respective group's breakout session. Summaries of these sessions are listed below.
Team 1 Accident Prevention Leader: Kathy
Gambrell (ORNL)
The specific goals for this team was to provide and prioritize a
list of recommended technologies. Suggest an importance of each
technology for CVO on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being not very
important and 5 being very important). The team developed the
following lists of prioritized recommended technologies in the
three major categories
Driver Condition Monitoring
1. Driver Fatigue/Impairment (5)
2. Driver Substance Abuse (3)
(Products identified in these categories: 6)
Collision Avoidance and Lane Departure
1. No Zone/Blind Spots (5)
2. Forward Warning (4)
3. Lane Departure (3)
(Products identified in these categories: 13)
Vehicle Stability/Control
1. Brake Control (5)
2. Weight/Weight Distribution (4)
3. Suspension Control (3)
4. Tire Pressure (2)
(Products identified in these categories: 11)
The team then identified the following manufacturers and products that would fall into the categories.
Driver Condition Monitoring
1. Alcohol Sensors International Breath Alcohol Ignition
Interlock
2. Carnegie-Mellon Driver Monitoring System
3. SCI Sleepwatch
4. Manufacturer Not Known Nodding Device
5. Manufacturer Not Known Eye Monitoring
6. Evaluation Systems Driver Evaluation System
Collision Avoidance and Lane Departure
1. Eaton Corporation Eaton Vorad Collision Avoidance
2. Collision Avoidance Systems Inc. Blindsight Collision
Avoidance System
3. Armatron International Echovision Obstacle Detection System
4. Ultra-View Technology, Inc. Ultrasonic Backup Displaying
Distance and Object Detection; Tracking Mirror
5. Delco Forewarn
6. Allied Signal Trucklight Mid-Trailer Directional System
7. Sensor Vision Ultrasonic Detection System
8. 3M Reflective Tape
9. Manufacturer Not Known Rear-End Collision Avoidance System
10. Siemans Infrared Obstacle Detection System
11. KG Rear Vision Camera-Mounted Backup System
12. SCI Roadwatch Road Temperature Warning System
13. Carnegie-Mellon RALPH Lane Departure System
Vehicle Stability/Control
1. Air-Weigh Scales On Board Scales
2. Meritor Wabco Electronic Braking Systems, Electronic
Stability Control System, Electronic Shock Absorber Control
Systems, and Electronic Controlled Air Suspension System
3. Vulcan On Board Scales
4. Weigh-Right, Inc. On Board Scales
5. Emergency Brake Technologies, Inc. Emergency Braking System
6. ORNL/Umtri Roll Stability Sensors
7. PSI Tire Pressure Monitoring/Inflation
8. Cycloid Company Self-Contained Air Compressor System for
Automatic Tire Inflation
9. Insta-Chain Automatic Ice Chains
10. OnSpot Automatic Ice Chains
11. SCI Roadwatch Road Temperature Warning System
Team Members
Richard Romer Meritor WABCO
Bob Ferlis FHWA
Tom Plascyk Ultra-View Mirror, Inc.
Richard Rost Ultra-View Mirror, Inc.
Peter Powell Air-Weigh Scales
Jim Reinhardt Dana/Moto Mirror
Scott Stevens ORNL
Kathy Johnson - ORNL
Team 2 Vehicle Diagnostics/Prognostics
Leader: Bob Schilling (ORNL)
Specific goals for this team was to provide a list of parameters
not currently monitored or reported on the J1939 data bus that
should be considered for inclusion in the NITC bus, review the
ability of the J1939 data bus to be the IDB, and make a specific
recommendations.
The breakout group included a good cross section of suppliers and carriers. The initial discussion centered around specific technologies such as drive train vibration sensors and control, tire pressure, and driver awareness. The focus changed rapidly to a discussion of the need for a standard platform that could be used industry wide so that OEM's and carriers would have more flexibility in their network of customers and supplier. The discussion seemed to driven by the frustration of the TMC and SAE being so large and driven by self-interest groups.
The group identified the fleet operators as the champions for making something happen.
Team Members
Ben Abbott Utah State University
Elio DiVito U. S. Army National Automotive Center
Terry Fulton McKee Foods Corporation
Mark Haslam DriverTech
Anup Kejriwal American Mobile
Dennis Kramer Meritor Automotive, Inc.
Frank Palmeri Meritor Automotive, Inc.
David Parrett Atkins Technical, Inc.
Bob Schilling - ORNL
Team 3 Human Interface Standardization Leader: Bill Kneé (ORNL)
Background: It has been the contention of ORNL and other consortium members that the management and presentation of information meant for the driver is a key element in the integration of the intelligent truck. A single graphical user interface (SGUI) has been suggested as a way to centralize information, prioritize the information, frame the message into a presentation based on principles of good human factors, and focus the driver onto one display rather than one for each intelligent device. There are industry groups who are dedicated to various aspects of driver/vehicle interface. These aspects are message standardization, audible presentation, driving mode software compliance, and physical interaction. The NITC has the opportunity to serve in the role of all of the aspects of driver/vehicle interface, and hopefully will have the opportunity to deploy and demonstrate fully integrated systems.
Specific Goals of the Breakout Team: Review the framework and recommendations to date of the SAE ITS Driver Interface task force, and make recommendations to modify (if needed) and support this effort. Consider human factors elements during this session.
Activities and Results: The team met for 1.5 hours and began with a review by Mark Haslam (DriverTech) of the SAE ITS Driver Interface framework. This framework is a 3-level framework. A bottom level (called the "back-end" level), involves a system's architecture, data buses, message structure, etc. The middle layer (called the "information manager) supports arbitration of information that can be displayed to the driver, and the application of human factors rules related to display volume, etc. The last level (called the "front-end" level), involves the interface with the driver, operating modes, driver attention budget, and driver input. After some discussion, the team felt that each of these levels contributed to a structure for good human factors standardization. The remaining time was spent in discussing elements and characteristics of a structure for good human factors standardization. The following is a discussion of each of these elements/characteristics.
An open computing architecture was felt to be necessary, because without such an architecture, the ability to access and integrate various information sources, would be very difficult if not impossible. Therefore, an open computing architecture was felt to be a necessity for achieving an environment that supported good human factors standardization.
Having the ability to essentially "plug-and-play" new ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) or IVI (Intelligent Vehicle Initiative) devices was supported by the group as a strong necessary condition for eliciting human factors standardization within the driving environment. It was felt that without such a capability there would be a greater likelihood of customized installation that would not be supportive of human factors standardization within the driving environment.
This issue was felt to be at the center of a good human-centered driving environment. Considerable discussion focused on the need for filtering, prioritizing, and if necessary, fusing information from various data and information sources. It was felt that information partitioning rules should be sensitive to the driving situation, other message types, and the device types being employed at a given time. The predominant concern was to assure that the driver's workload did not exceed the driver's capacity. It was felt that even if all of the devices to be integrated in a driving environment were well engineered from an individual device perspective, that their effectiveness would be minimal without effective management of the total information coming from all of these devices.
After some discussion on the meaning of integration (and a number of integration levels were suggested, for example; co-installation of devices each with their own display [non-integrated]; shared data, but multiple displays; shared data, but a single display; and logical integration) it was felt that it was important to minimize the number of display devices to the driver. The group emphasized that this did not mean the suppression of information, but rather the avoidance of the proliferation of multiple displays, each using customized visual representations. The team felt however, that currently existing dedicated indicator lights and status gauges probably should be maintained. Such a strategy would minimize cost, and would elicit greater driver acceptance in comparison to a driving environment that is totally different from that which the CVO driver is used to.
In order to assure that excessive driver workload is avoided, the sheer number of tactile inputs from the driver should be minimized. Voice input should be considered along with the design of interface protocols that do not require excessive driver interaction.
Visual, auditory and haptic modes of I/O between the driver and the information system should be supported because the information processing capabilities were felt to be enhanced by a diversity of modes. It was felt that research was still needed on the topic of suitability of the various modes for various driving situations. Furthermore, additional emphasis should be placed on the evaluation of alternative display technologies such as head-up-displays (HUDs).
A human-centered driving environment that involves a number of ITS/IVI devices should be designed so that there is not a revolutionary change in the traditional driving paradigm. Drivers may be willing to make evolutionary changes, but would likely not accept changes that depart significantly from the way CVO driving is currently done.
The team felt that while it would be impossible to "specify" a common information presentation protocol between vehicle and device OEMs, there should be an effort to identify a minimum set of critical information that should be consistent. The consistence in the display presentation protocols for such critical items will enable drivers to maintain a strong cognizance of driving responses across different devices, and across different trucks. Such consistency supports skill-based behavior, which is much less workload intensive that the cognitive-based behavior that would be necessary if critical information were displayed in a diversity of ways.
Certain functionalities associated with ITS/IVI devices should not be engaged in while the vehicle is in motion. In fact, the team identified a number of modes across which functionalites could be distributed. These include driving, stopped, diagnostics, sleep, and passenger. Some functionalities may be allowable if it can be shown that their engagement can be done without decreasing driving quality. Voice input was suggested as an example of how this might be done; however, it was further suggested that talking to complete a task (i.e., to input information into a system), was different from conversational talking. It was commented that voice input for task completion might elicit cognitive capture (a similar effect was noted with regard to cell-phone conversations that intensely involved the driver; e.g., as in an argument with a spouse) which could lead to the reduction of effective perception.
While is was felt to be somewhat redundant with previous points, the team felt that it was important to stress that the integration of information, and the effective management of the CVO driver's workload was one of the most important elements of an effective advanced driving environment.
The last topic discussed dealt with what might be done to facilitate greater implementation of human factors standardization. The following items were mentioned and are self explanatory. The last bullet below stimulated some discussion and a brief summary of that bullet is provided. The items were as follows:
* NITC should work closely with all standards
groups,
* NITC should work closely with vehicle OEMs and major fleet
segments,
* NITC should work closely with industry associations,
* NITC should work closely with research organizations that have
truck simulators (e.g., Carnegie Mellon University),
* Demonstrations via fleet implementation should be engaged in
with specific IVI devices, and information management prototypes,
* Lessons learned, and data and information from CVO testing
should be collected, archived, and made available to research and
other organizations (yet to be determined) through an easy
dissemination method (e.g., via the internet).
With regard to the last bullet, it was felt that getting such information "out" to researchers and the industry in general would help to make a stronger case for user acceptance of ITS/IVI technologies.
Team Members
Adam Kahn Qualcomm, Corp.
Bill Kneé ORNL
Glen Allgaier Eaton Corp.
Phil Wolff UT/ORNL
Kris Weeks Collision Avoidance
Bob Turner McFee Foods Corporation
Gary Capps ORNL
Team 4 Mobile Systems and Information Services Leader: Lara Baughman (Navigation Technologies)
Specific Goals for this group included reviewing the MSI technologies from the TRB workshop and determine which are interesting to the CVO community, and which new ones should be added.
Generation 0 (Now 2001)
1) Non-dynamic directions w/optimized fuel
2) Route guidance (Note: dynamic route guidance for CVO has extra
complexities weight restrictions, clearances, HAZMAT
restrictions, etc.)
3) Real-time traffic information
4) User initiated roadside assistance (panic button, cell phone
on star, rescue
5) Office (voice mail, email, fax, e.g., Clarion, Qualcomm)
(Note: Voice capabilities in cab? Definitional issue.)
6) Internet
*"In the air" out of range
*Land-line for long haul
7) Home
*Entertainment
*Concierge
*Address/calendar management
8) Vehicle Diagnostics
*Prognostics (preventative)
9) Exception Reporting
*Continual monitoring
* Report exceptions (Truck out of route, late pick-up/delivery)
10) Driver Performance Monitoring
*Automate
11) Monitoring Device
*E.g., Refrigeration monitor and parse information
*Communicate to other systems
12) Fuel Tax (GPS)
*Miles driven in each state use GPS (want to "know"
state boundaries download counter at specified intervals)
13) Driver Log Electronic
*Today paper records
14) Electronic Weight Stations
15) ETA-based on long and lat.
16) Location Accurate
*Standalone issue, but ? in to other to list
17) Integrated tractor trailer system LMSI?
Steps
1) Integration Comms plug and play bus has to be there A
basic, enabling technology. Need to get everyone to play with
same one. (Open architecture)
*First step: into vehicle
* Second step: integrate applications into single system
2) OEM Buy-In
3) Regulatory bodies/issues there, but less salient than, for
instance, w/DAS
* Workshop participants
* OEMs: get them into field
* Government support of standards
* Current Councils maintenance council (TMC, SAE, ATA)
* Vendor just supply pieces need sounding boards
* How does industry want info?
Vision
Team Members
Lara Baughman Navigation Technologies, Inc.
Jim Gerdeman Atkins Technical, Inc.
Adam Kahn Qualcomm, Corp.
Curt McGowen American Mobile
Matt Scudiere ORNL
Bob Slaughter Dick Simon Trucking, Inc.
During a working lunch, technical presentations were given by:
Gary Capps began the second half of the workshop by discussing the following technical approach for the completion of an integrated system including the following.
He explained that the focus areas for the second breakout session included:
Session II - Technical Approach Teams
1. Definition of Requirements
2. System Integration
3. Field Operational Tests
4. Consortium Funding Strategy, Structure, and Outreach
Looking at the NITC "Generation 0" from a systems perspective, he tasked the breakout groups to outline the key technical/institutional challenges that must be overcome prior to completion of the above tasks. He also asked the groups to outline the technical/administrative approach that the group believed the Consortium should take to overcome these challenges. And finally, he asked that each group generate a short statement that describes the expected outcome that is envisioned for their particular Technical Approach.
The second breakout session objectives and structure given by Gary are listed below.
Team 1 Definition of Requirements Leader:
Steve McNeany (ORNL)
In order to assure adoption of the NITC system, definition must
be given to the systems that will allow integration of existing
CVO technologies in an open architecture, plug-and-play
environment, while allowing growth for emerging technologies, and
technologies that will be a product of future R&D. Given the
information presented to date, consider potential requirements
related to the total system. Areas to focus on include:
system/sub-system components cost, physical space, weight, and
power needs (voltage and current). Additionally, the potential
future requirements of the systems should be considered (live
video, high resolution printing, real time scanning, etc).
Specific Goals: Establish a list of requirements for the system that will allow for the inclusion of future technologies without system redesign or replacement.
Team 2 System Integration Leader: Mark
Haslam (DriverTech)
Integration is the heart of the "Generation 0" system.
This will be the task that brings together the selected bus
architecture and the GUI. Operating system hardware and software
will need to be determined as well as technology type utilization
(surface mount, VLSI chip, etc), and the sub-components
modularization scheme. Consideration will need to be given to the
type of interface to be used between the technologies chosen for
integration and the system including card cage/back plane type
and communications protocol.
Specific Goals: Discuss the overall system requirements, and what the issues will be as we integrate a single truck, and then a fleet. Come up with a list of those issues. Do we need a dedicated vehicle for the initial integration development?
Team 3 Field Operational Test Leader:
Gary Capps (ORNL)
Field operation tests will be conducted on actual power units
using the developed NITC System. The test could consist of trucks
with no technology (baseline), trucks with the NITC system and
minimal peripheral equipment, and trucks with all the technology
available at the beginning of the test. Fleet representation
could include Full Load, Less Than Load (LTL), Logistics
Contractors, and Private Fleets. The type of units under test
(UUT) could include box trailer, refrigerated trailer, and
flatbed. With these potential parameters, consider structuring an
operational test for "Generation 0."
Specific Goals: Compare the "ideal" operational test with the "reasonably achievable" operational test. Explore creative ways to test on a larger scale.
Team 4 Consortium Funding Strategy,
Structure, and Outreach Leader: Jeff Muhs (ORNL)
As with any effort, funding will be required. Additionally,
marketing for the development effort and the final product will
be required. For a broad based consortium such as the NITC, many
potential funding strategies exist such as: internal funding of
specific R&D, teaming between consortium members, and
external funding from state and federal government sources. The
structure of a consortium must serve the interests of the
consortium, each individual member, and potential sponsors.
Specific Goals: Focusing on "Generation 0", develop one or two possible strategies to bring external funding into the consortium. Recommend a potential consortium structure(s) to facilitate these strategies. Develop a basic outreach concept for the NITC and for the NITC system once it is developed.
Information for Team Leaders
Breakout Session II Reports Technical Approach as Applied to "Generation 0"
All attendees participated in one of the four groups. The second breakout session lasted approximately 1 hour. Each team leader reported on their respective group's breakout session. Summaries of these sessions are listed below.
Team 1 Definition of Requirements Leader:
Steve McNeany (ORNL)
Specific goal was to establish a list of requirements for the
system that will allow for the inclusion of future technologies
without system redesign or replacement.
Components Should be Plug and Play
Technical/Institutional Issues
Perhaps one way to involve stakeholders is by contractual indemnities.
The group envisioned a system that is safe, efficient, and productive at an affordable cost.
Team Members
Bob Ferlis FHWA
Kathy Gambrell - ORNL
Steve McNeany ORNL
Richard Rost Ultra-View Mirror, Inc.
Matt Scudiere ORNL
Team 2 System Integration Leader: Mark
Haslam (DriverTech)
Specific Goals were to discuss the overall system requirements,
and devise a list of the issues relating to integrating a single
truck, and then a fleet. Specifically, do we need a dedicated
vehicle for the initial integration development?
The group came up with the following draft structure.
Ultra-High Speed
IDB
J1939
J1708/J1587 Monitoring, Diagnostics, Broadcast Info
PLC4 Trucks
Integration Issues
1) Multiple existing networks and protocols
a) Backwards compatibility
2) Should the IDB by J1939 or what
a) How to include ultra-high speed (e.g. video)
3) Prioritize the messages as part of effort (e.g., prioritize
across a gateway and routing)
4) Filtering the messages (not every message goes everywhere)
a) Translation of data between networks.
5) Driver information integration
a) Value/cost benefit, etc.
6) Progression
a) Bench level/simulator
b) Single truck
c) Pilot fleet(s)
6.2) Include trailers in process
Approach
Demonstrate on Gen 0 integrated system enables an evaluation of
the IVI for CV operations.
Outcome
By the end of Gen 0, the consortium shall have answered the
issues and will have demonstrated the usefulness of the
Intelligent Truck in regards to safety and productivity.
Team Members
Ben Abbott Utah State University
Glen Allgaier Eaton Corp.
Elio DiVito U.S. Army National Automotive Center
Jim Gerdeman Atkins Technical, Inc.
Mark Haslam - DriverTech
Adam Kahn Qualcomm, Inc.
Anup Kejriwal - American Mobile
Bill Kneé - ORNL
Dennis Kramer Meritor Automotive, Inc.
Frank Palmeri Meritor Automotive, Inc.
Rick Romer Meritor WABCO
Team 3 Field Operational Test Leader:
Gary Capps (ORNL)
Specific goals were to compare the "ideal" operational
test with the "reasonably achievable" operational test
and explore creative ways to test on a larger scale.
Test Requirements
1) Implementation teams
2) Ability to modify operation software
3) Regional testing
4) Functionality--\
5) Productivity ----> Criteria must be defined
6) Durability-----/
7) Capture data methods
a) Electronic data
b) Human factors
c) Safety
d) Autonomous data gathering
e) "Y" branch of data
8) Legal Issues
a) Privacy
b) Self policing
c) Amnesty period
Company Under Test Requirement
1) Adequate technical staff
2) Minimal impact on operations
3) Fully disclose profile of company (operational
characteristics)
Number of Units Under Test
1) Minimum of 5 50 trucks
Cost? Carrier?
Team Members
Matt Cappelli Hendrickson International
Gary Capps - ORNL
Terry Fulton McKee Foods Corporation
Kathy Johnson - ORNL
Curt McGowan American Mobile
David Parrett - Atkins Technical, Inc.
Bob Slaughter Dick Simon Trucking Inc.
Scott Stevens - ORNL
Bob Turner McKee Foods Corporation
Kris Weeks Collision Avoidance
Phil Wolff UT/ORNL
Team 4 Consortium Funding Strategy,
Structure, and Outreach Leader: Jeff Muhs (ORNL)
Specific goals were to focus on "Generation 0" and
develop one or two possible strategies to bring external funding
into the consortium, recommend a potential consortium
structure(s) to facilitate these strategies, and develop a basic
outreach concept for the NITC and for the NITC system once it is
developed.
Priority National Interest (why we're doing it)
With the continual expansion in commercial vehicle use in the U.S. and around the word, suppliers of a wide range of innovative yet nonintegrated safety- and productivity-enhancing products, truck and engine OEM suppliers, carriers, and other public and private stakeholders are facing a new dilemma. To maximize the productivity and safety of trucks on our nations highways, an urgent need exists to develop an open architecture system capable of providing truck drivers with real-time information via a single user interface. Until this open architecture is established and made available, suppliers of system components will continue to face significant barriers to market penetration of their products, and the proliferation of carrier/shipper-endorsed integrated safety/productivity-enhancing solutions will continue to be stifled by disjointed standards and differing implementation requirements.
Mission (what we're doing) (as presented by Gary Capps)
Vision (where we want to get) (as presented by Gary Capps)
Strategic Goals & Objectives (how we're going to measure when we get there)
(need to be discussed soon)
More about NITC
The National Intelligent Truck Consortium is both a vertically-
and horizontally-integrated public/private strategic alliance
dedicated to the development and implementation of an open
architecture system for commercial vehicles and associated
end-product research, development and commercialization. The
Consortium performs precompetitive (collective and selective)
R&D and is open to membership from U.S. firms with technical
resources and related competencies relevant to NITC's mission,
vision, and strategic goals. The Consortium leverages industry
resources and experience residing with both OEM suppliers as well
as carriers and combines it with the unbiased technical resources
residing at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Matrixed Leadership Responsibilities & Organizational Structure
The consortium enjoys the unique situation of having matrixed "triad" leadership team consisting of carriers (end-users), OEMs (suppliers), and an independent national laboratory (ORNL) with broad-base technical and managerial ITS experience. This approach was selected in order to ensure:
Day-to-day operation of the NITC resides at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory while technical priorities, major tasks and decisions relative to overall program direction, funding, and schedule reside with the triad management team. Similarly, RD&D activities are matrixed by user-services (led by carriers) and technical approach (led by OEM suppliers). Figure 1 shown in Gary Capps' comments below illustrates the above organizational structure.
See Appendix 9 for viewgraphs presented by Jeff Muhs.
Team Members
Lara Baughman Navigation Technologies
Jeff Muhs - ORNL
Tom Plascyk Ultra-View Mirror, Inc.
Peter Powell Air-Weigh
Jim Reinhardt Dana/Moto Mirror
Bob Schilling - ORNL
Gary Capps presented the following
vision statement:
The National Intelligent Truck Consortium envisions a time in the
next decade when because of its efforts, a majority of commercial
vehicles and frequently traveled highways are equipped with
commercially-viable, integrated, and standardized
productivity-enhancing systems and safety warning, assistance,
and control systems. Responding to changing internal and external
environments, these "intelligent" trucks (along with
accompanying drivers that are better informed and equipped) will
continually adapt to and mitigate potential safety- and
productivity-compromising situations, thereby preventing a
significant number of accidents and greatly improving motor
carrier productivity.
He also presented the following mission
statement:
Working as a unified team, the NITC's mission is to integrate
off-the-shelf technology along with newly developed technology
into economically-viable commercial vehicle safety and
productivity enhancing systems, and to deploy these systems on
our nations highways. Further, the Consortium's mission is to
provide a commercially-neutral, value-added avenue for member
companies to team with one another and cost-share R&D
activities in an area of common interest (commercial vehicle
safety systems). Ultimately, the mission is to save our customers
and the motoring public time, money, and most importantly, lives
on our nations highways.
He suggested the following structure for the consortium:
 |
During the wrap-up session several questions were asked from the floor.
When will the next meeting be held?
Probably within the next two months.
Where do we go from here?
Jeff Muhs will take the lead to get documents in place to form
the National Intelligent Truck Consortium (NITC).
Gary Capps adjourned the workshop.