Field Operational Tests and Deployment Plans

  • Yvonne BarnardEmail author
  • François Fischer
  • Maxime Flament


In this chapter an explanation is given of Field Operational Tests (FOT), studies to evaluate the impact of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in the real world. The methodology for designing and conducting these tests is described. Different types of FOT can be distinguished, testing advanced driver assistance systems and nomadic devices, as well as cooperative systems allowing communication between vehicles and between vehicles and infrastructure. This last type of test is discussed in more detail, addressing the question of how they can be used for testing vehicular ad hoc network (VANET) technologies, and examples are given of both European and US projects. Specifically the DRIVE C2X project is described, as it explicitly addresses these technologies. Conducting FOTs is an important step on the way to the deployment of ITS. Also, data deriving from these studies can be deployed, in new projects, to answer new research questions. The chapter concludes with a description of the networking and community building activities in the Field Operational Test domain.


VANET FOT FESTA Deployment Cooperative systems Data sharing Data re-use FOT-Net FOT-Net Data European projects DRIVE C2X ITS Spot Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot Stakeholders Standardisation Evaluation 


  1. 1.
    Barnard Y, Krems J, Risser R (eds) (2011) Safety of intelligent driver support systems: design, evaluation, and social perspectives. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnard Y, Carsten O (2010) Field operational tests: challenges and methods. In: Krems J, Petzoldt T, Henning M (eds) Proceedings of European conference on human centred design for intelligent transport systems. HUMANIST, Lyon, pp 323–332Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    FESTA (2014) FESTA Handbook, Version 5 (Field opErational teSt supporT Action). Available at:
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Dingus TA, Klauer SG, Neale VL, Petersen A, Lee SE, Sudweeks J, Perez MA, Hankey J, Ramsey D, Gupta S, Bucher C, Doerzaph ZR, Jermeland J, Knipling RR (2006) The 100-car naturalistic driving study, phase II: results of the 100-car field experiment. NHTSA report DOT HS 809 593. NHTSA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Antin JF (2011) Design of the in-vehicle driving behavior and crash risk study: in support of the SHRP 2 naturalistic driving study. Transportation Research Board, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boyle LN, Lee JD, Neyens DM, McGehee DV, Hallmark S, Ward NJ (2009) SHRP2 S02 integration of analysis methods and development of analysis plan. Phase 1 Report. University of Iowa, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Eenink R, Barnard Y, Baumann M, Augros X, Utesch F (2014) UDRIVE: the European naturalistic driving study. In: Proceedings of the TRA 2014 - transport research arena conference in ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Regan MA, Williamson A, Grzebieta R, Charlton J, Lenneb M, Watson B, Haworth N, Rakotonirainy A, Woolley J, Anderson R, Senserrick T, Young K (2013) The Australian 400-car naturalistic driving study: innovation in road safety research and policy. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Australasian road safety research, policing & education conference, Brisbane, QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Benmimoun M, Pütz A, Ljung Aust M, Faber F, Sánchez D, Metz B, Saint Pierre G, Geißler T, Guidotti L, Malta L (2012) Deliverable D6.1 Final evaluation results. euroFOT ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kessler C, Etemad A, Alessandretti G, Heinig K, Selpi, Brouwer R, Cserpinszky A, Hagleitner W, Benmimoun M (2012) Deliverable D11.3 Final Report, euroFOT ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mononen P, Franzen S, Pagle K, Morris A, Innamaa S, Karlsson M, Touliou K, Montanari R, Fruttaldo S (2012) D1.15 TeleFOT Final ReportGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Schmidt E, Barnard Y, Alkim T, Zennaro G, Toulminet G, Barbier C, Friis G (2013) FOT-Net 2 Deliverable D62. Stakeholder Needs AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Kanazawa F, Kanoshima H, Sakai K, Suzuki K (2010) Field operational tests of smartway in Japan. IATSS Res 34:31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    Barnard Y, Koskinen S, Gellerman H (2014) A platform for sharing data from field operational tests. In: Proceedings of the ITS world congress 2014 in DetroitGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Barnard Y (ed) (2014) FOT-Net 2 Deliverable D2.2 Report on FOT Network activitiesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yvonne Barnard
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • François Fischer
    • 2
  • Maxime Flament
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Intelligent Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.ERTICO - ITS EuropeBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations