U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
of Transportation
DTRT57-07-R-SBIR
PROGRAM SOLICITATION
Small Business Innovation Research Program
Issue Date: February 15, 2007
Closing Date: May 1, 2007
DOT SBIR Program Office, RTV-1A
U.S. DOT/RITA/VNTSC
55 Broadway
Cambridge , MA 02142-1093
Questions and Answers
07-PH1: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13
07-PH2: Q1
07-FT2: Q1, Q2, Q3
07-FT4: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10
07-FH4: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14
07-FR1 & 07-FR2: Q1
07-FR1: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10
07-FR3: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12
07-NH1: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4
07-NH2: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4
07-FM1: Q1
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
07-PH1 Pipeline Safety:
- Nanotechnology tools for Internal Corrosion of Pipelines
- Development of Risk Protocol for LNG Facilities
- Design Optimization for Soft Crack Arrestors
QUESTION:
The topic asks for the ability to detect corrosive compounds. In addition to water, what other compounds would be DOT interested in detecting in the gas pipelines?
ANSWER:
Depending on the source of the product being transported various corrosive compounds have the potential of being included. Several public web sites are available with information regarding composition makeup. In addition someone with a petroleum engineering background might be of assistance. It is up to the applicant to determine the range of detection their technical is capable of detecting.
QUESTION:
Also besides the natural gas, what additional non-reactive compounds might be present in the pipeline that might interfere with sensor operation?
ANSWER:
Natural gas is a gaseous fossil fuel consisting primarily of methane but including significant quantities of ethane, butane, propane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, helium and hydrogen sulfide. It is found in oil fields and natural gas fields, and in coal beds. When methane-rich gases are produced by the anaerobic decay of non-fossil organic material, these are referred to as biogas. Sources of biogas include swamps, marshes, and landfills (see landfill gas), as well as sewage sludge and manure by way of anaerobic digesters, in addition to enteric fermentation particularly in cattle. Natural gas is often informally referred to as simply gas, especially when compared to other energy sources such as electricity. Before natural gas can be used as a fuel, it must undergo extensive processing to remove almost all materials other than methane. The by-products of that processing include ethane, propane, butanes, pentanes and higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, elemental sulfur, and sometimes helium and nitrogen.
Nitrogen, helium, carbon dioxide and trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide, water and odorants can also be present. Mercury is also present in small amounts in natural gas extracted from some fields. The exact composition of natural gas varies between gas fields.
Organic sulfur compounds and hydrogen sulfide are common contaminants which must be removed prior to most uses. Gas with a significant amount of sulfur impurities, such as hydrogen sulfide, is termed sour gas; gas with sulfur or carbon dioxide impurities is acid gas. Processed natural gas that is available to end-users is tasteless and odorless; however, before gas is distributed to end-users, it is odorized by adding small amounts of thiols, to assist in leak detection. Processed natural gas is, in itself, harmless to the human body; however, natural gas is a simple asphyxiant and can kill if it displaces air to the point where the oxygen content will not support life.
It is up to the applicant to determine the range of non-reactive compounds within the natural gas that might effect sensor operations.
QUESTION:
I had a chance to look at the 2007 DOT SBIR solicitation. We have some intial works performed, that I think would fit for the program topic: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
Would be great if you could send me comments on the following if this would fit for the topic.
We propose to make Nanotube paper lining insulated pipeline . The idea is to have a carbon nanotube skin to the pipe lines (it could be done for any type of pipe material). What we do is to have the BP skin as the inner lining for the pipes and we bond this to the pipe using a very low volume fraction of polymer.
Advantages:
- Now we have an all different pipelining system, which has a very firm skin lining inside whish, is very light, highly conductive thermally and electrically.
- Non corrosive: this is an interesting aspect of the novel Nanopaper material that we propose.
- Now to add one more dimension to this idea, we could functionalize the nanotube paper material with silver nanoparticles and that would kill the unwanted microbes in the materials passing through the pipe, if that adds value.
- Also, the nanotube paper skin can also perform as a sensor to remote monitor the cracks or failures inside the sewer pipe (health monitoring)
- So now we have a smart multifunctional pipeline system!!
- Scalability: Based on the current technology continuous production of about 12-20 inch wide nanotube paper is possible (as long as one needs).
Would be great if you could let me know your thoughts on the above.
ANSWER:
First off all can apply. Only the applications that are ranked the highest will be awarded.
The technical approach presented doesn’t appear to be a cost effective or a reliable solution to the challenge identified in the research topic. In specific, the integrity of the system has the potential to be jeopardized due to its construction every time an in-line inspection ( ILI) tool is run in the pipe. ILI inspection of the pipeline is regulated requirement by DOT/PHMSA on a predetermined cycle. In addition, most operators will run a cleaning tool in front of the ILI to ensure positive contact with the steel structure of the pipe. This cleaning tool has the potential of destructive effects to a carbon nanotube skin.
QUESTION:
With respect to the SBIR Research Topic identified as 07-PH1 Pipeline Safety 1. Development of Risk Protocol for LNG Facilities, we would inquire whether the scope is confined to pipelines or whether the term Facilities implies a broader scope ranging, say, from production facilities to refueling stations and processing facilities such as reforming operations. Knowing if the intent is to focus on one, all or any of these or to take a general generic approach would be helpful in preparing a proposal.
ANSWER:
The DOT/PHMSA regulated natural gas transmission pipelines are the focus area for Risk Protocol for LNG Facilities. Transmission pipelines carry product interstate and not intrastate and therefore does not include distribution pipelines. To learn more about the pipelines that DOT/PHMSA regulates go to the following web site.* http://ops.dot.gov/
QUESTION:
What products are transported in the pipelines that are expected to use these crack arrestors? What conditions (temperature, pressure, phase) is the product during transportation?
ANSWER:
Natural gas and hazardous liquids that DOT/PHMSA regulates.
QUESTION:
What is the range of dimensions (diameter, wall thickness) of the pipelines for use with these crack arrestors?
ANSWER:
The entire range of pipelines that DOT/PHMSA regulates
QUESTION:
What are the pipeline materials?
ANSWER:
X-40 to X-120 pipeline steels.
QUESTION:
When sections of pipe are welded, what welding specification is used?
ANSWER:
There are ASME standards for welding pipelines
QUESTION:
What is the acceptable range of distance between crack arrestors located on the same pipe?
ANSWER:
That is for the principle investigator to specify in the cost effectiveness of their design.
QUESTION:
If the pipelines are assembled as clusters what is the dimensional clearance around the pipes?
ANSWER:
That is for the Principle Investigator to specify.
QUESTION:
Are the crack arrestors expected to be installed on existing pipelines, during pipe manufacture, or both?
ANSWER:
Both.
QUESTION:
What are the environmental conditions (Temperature, sun exposure, rain, ice, underground etc) will the crack arrestor be exposed to?
ANSWER:
The principle investigator needs to specify the range of environmental conditions that their proposed approach will work under and remain cost effective for the pipeline industry .
QUESTION:
Regarding topic 07-PH1 item 2, Development of Risk Protocol for LNG Facilities, could you clarify if the LNG facilities are limited to land based facilitates regulated by DOT 49 CFR Part 193? If not please specify what facilities are included in the risk protocol.
ANSWER:
Yes, we are only interested in land based LNG facilities that are regulated by DOT 49 CFR Part 193.
07-PH2 Hazardous Materials:
Emerging Technologies Applicable to Hazardous Materials Transportation
Question :
"Emerging technologies....." what are some of the specific technologies being considered by DOT or have higher precedence over other technologies with the DOT. This is because compared to the other topics, this topic is loosely described without technical specifics and additionally it has been stated that many technologies are in varying stages of development. This last question is of most importance because if the priority of this topic over the other topics in the administration is low and there is an additional preference for a specific technology, which we may not be able to provide then our company can save time & money by not proposing to the topic.
Answer:
The DOT is not actively considering specific technologies that have a higher precedence over other technologies to improve hazardous materials safety. The intent is for the applicant to propose and develop a specific emerging technology, as it would apply to hazardous materials transportation or to propose a way to survey and prioritize emerging technologies that hold promise in the foreseeable future.
Federal Transit Administration
07-FT2 Hybrid Propulsion for Rail Locomotives
QUESTION:
Would research into novel biofuels fall under the purview of the Research Topic "07-FT2 Hybrid Propulsion for Rail Locomotives"? I ask because the description of the topic specifically mentions hydraulic storage systems or electric drives and batteries; however, the overall goal of the topic appears to be research into methods that reduce energy consumption and emissions from diesel fuel.
If novel biofuels research is not appropriate for this program, do you know of a program within the DOT that focuses on fuels research and is suitable for small businesses?
ANSWER:
The mission of FTA is not to develop novel fuels, but to find ways of using clean, renewable fuels in transit vehicles.
A proposal to develop novel biofuels should be addressed to the Department of Energy or the Environmental Protection Agency.
If by “research into novel biofuels� they mean using them in rail transit locomotives in a hybrid configuration that saves energy, then the proposal would probably be responsive to our Research Topic "07-FT2 Hybrid Propulsion for Rail Locomotives."
QUESTION:
Does diesel engine testing of a biofuel (not ethanol or biodiesel) blended with diesel (or biodiesel) constitute a hybrid?
ANSWER:
The essence of hybrid propulsion of interest to FTA locomotives is incorporating an energy storage system that captures kinetic energy from braking for release when needed. That energy is stored either as increased pressure in a reservoir by a hydraulic or pneumatic device or as electricity in a battery or bank of ultracapacitors.
Use of biofuel in a diesel engine not linked to an energy storage device would not constitute a hybrid.
QUESTION:
My company is considering responding to the Hybrid Propulsion for Rail Locomotives SBIR. We have an innovative power conversion technology that has been used to improve several military systems, and we believe this technology might also be applicable to the SBIR.
We, however, have little experience in the rail locomotive field. If you can provide any guidance on the questions below, particularly links to relevant websites and papers, we can improve the applicability and quality of our proposal.
- What size and weight requirements exist for this system?
- What power level (or power range) is required?
- Is there a target platform? A particular locomotive? Engine?
- What is the baseline energy consumption & emissions of existing systems? Are there any papers describing desired efficiency gains?
- What research has your group performed so far on this application? Do you have any contract final reports and papers for prior efforts?
- Can you point us to any papers that describe how electric train designs work now? This will allow us to ensure we design our system for the particular voltage and current levels that have been used in the past.
ANSWER:
We have not sponsored research on this application beyond our reasonable certainty that there is no ready source of hybrid locomotive propulsion, using either hydraulic energy storage systems or electric drives and batteries, designed for operating on a non-electrified line.
We expect the applicant to be well enough acquainted with passenger rail transportation technology to conduct a literature search and define the problem his proposed solution would address.
By the way, the hybrid locomotive on the GE website is an application of battery storage of regenerative braking energy from an electrically powered locomotive, operating on an electrified line.
GM’s EMD offers a diesel-electric locomotive that is in effect a large rolling diesel-fueled generator that produces electrical power for propulsion, operating on a non-electrified line.
EMD (General Motors) and General Electric are the two large mfgrs. Typically they produce 2-3000 HP.
07-FT4 Very High Speed Third Rail Insulator Cleaning
QUESTION:
The referenced progress report by Arun Vohra on Project 36 of the 2004 Transportation
Research Board (TRB) report: New IDEAS for Rapid Transit indicates that there is or was a TRB project in being aimed at solving the insulator-cleaning problem (by whom we do not know).
If so, what is the justification for your RFP 07-FT4 ? We cannot make the considerable effort of preparing a Phase I SBIR proposal if similar R&D is established already.
ANSWER:
FTA is looking for a completely different technical approach than the Transit IDEA project.
Transit IDEA project 47 is investigating a high-pressure water-spray approach to cleaning insulators.
Is there a completely different technical approach to cleaning insulators that would be much faster and use less water?
QUESTION:
We need to know how fast is considered "very high speed" in this topic.
ANSWER:
We did not have a number in mind of how many seconds to clean one insulator. By “very high speed� one could infer “at least an order of magnitude faster than existing methods.�
QUESTION:
Would the Federal Transit Administration be interested in funding a well proven, and world widely used, self-paint technology to be applied to the self cleaning of transit rail insulators?
ANSWER:
No. The fundamental problem is caused by the buildup of metal particles, not loss of sheen on the insulator surface.
QUESTION:
Could you recommend a strategic commercialization partner that can assist us with the transition and implementation of the technology in rapid railway transit system during and after the Phase II program?
ANSWER:
No. Finding partners and marketing is the applicant's responsibility.
QUESTION:
What could be the commercial potential of a rapid cleaning rail insulator system?
ANSWER:
It would save hours of hand labor in difficult working conditions.
QUESTION:
If the SLFCLN-Ceram technology proves realizable and efficient, what could be the entry point for a commercial demonstration, and on how many railway systems the technology could be implemented?
ANSWER:
The entry point would be a rail transit system that had been an active partner in the Phase 1 feasibility study.
QUESTION:
How important for the Phase I demonstration is it to have an actual transit rail test or is a laboratory experiment adequate for Phase I? If an actual transit rail test is preferred then, could you suggest a contact point and a transit authority to work with?
ANSWER:
Phase 1 is intended to evaluate feasibility prior to investing in a Phase 2 prototype.
QUESTION:
What are the most important technical issues and concerns that should be addressed in this proposal? Are there any other salient considerations besides water, speed, interruption of service, labor and cost?
ANSWER:
The applicant is expected to understand the technical aspects of the problem.
QUESTION:
From a budget point of view for the transit authorities, is it better for the cost of the project to be front loaded in a capital type improvement with minimal operating and maintenance costs? Or is it preferred that the majority of the cost be in an operating budget?
ANSWER:
In general, operating and maintenance cost savings are highly valued because they go directly to the transit agency's bottom line. Capital investments may need only a 20% local share if sufficient Federal capital funding is available.
QUESTION:
I see that there are 5 awards pending for the Federal Transit Administration. Does this mean that the 07-FT4 solicitations will definitely be funded?
ANSWER:
There is no commitment to fund 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 awards. If proposals are of sufficiently high quality, one or more will be funded.
Federal Highway Administration
07-FH4 Quick Highway Incident Detection and Incident Warning Systems
QUESTION:
We’ve been investigating technologies for this type of applications. However, from the solicitation, it seems that it is a call for proposal of an extension of the previous work done by UMTRI. If this is the case, it is difficult, if not impossible, for institutes other than UMTRI to compete for this opportunity.
ANSWER:
UMTRI will not be in the SBIR program.
QUESTION:
Can we contact the technical POC directly or must we continue to send all technical questions through you?
ANSWER:
All technical questions must go through email to joseph.henebury@dot.gov Contact with DOT relative to this solicitation period is restricted for reasons of competitive fairness.
QUESTION:
What exactly is meant by “low cost� with regards to the detection stations? Do you have a monetary figure for the required minimum cost to make 100ft spacing of the said detection stations cost-effective?
ANSWER:
There is no monetary figure here. One of the key features of this system is to use large amount of sensors to detect and locate an incident quickly. Therefore, cost of sensors would be sensitive to the agencies using the system, due to the large quantity.
QUESTION:
If you do not have a monetary figure for the detection station cost are you relying on our expertise to demonstrate why our proposal meets the low cost requirement?
ANSWER:
Yes. We would like to see a system with the performance and the cost acceptable to the agencies. Low cost is one important criterion, and performance is another important one.
QUESTION:
Are you considering devices within vehicles?
ANSWER:
Not in this project
QUESTION:
Are you looking for a one type solution for all roadways or varying solutions for different roadways?
ANWER:
We are flexible. What we look into include the basic components such as sensors and systems integration.
QUESTION:
Should the system be compatible with the IEEE WAVE (wireless access in vehicular environments) standards for wireless communication?
ANSWER:
We encourage bidders to consider this, but do not require in this project. Upon the success of this project, we will consider a broader integration with VII including WAVE standard.
QUESTION:
Do you desire the instantaneous velocity during the entire interval between detection stations or is it acceptable to only acquire the velocity once, in close proximity to each detection station?
ANSWER:
We don’t have to get continuous speed data throughout entire interval. The objective of the system is to get needed data so that the software can figure out there is a stopped vehicle on the travel lane. The main concept of operations is to use multiple sensors to detect and locate an incident. And due to large quantity of sensor usage, low cost sensor is the solution that can make the system affordable and practical.
QUESTION:
How many lanes of traffic need to be monitored for the Phase I project?
ANSWER:
Due to the budget limitation for Phase I, only one lane coverage is required in phase I. However, two lane coverage is required in Phase II, and the contractor should address how the proposed system can work for covering two lanes in the future.
QUESTION:
What is the cost of the existing “low interval� systems per mile?
ANSWER:
There is no such type of system yet in operation. Therefore no reference system is available for a comparison. The selection is based on the performance of the proposed technology and the total cost.
QUESTION:
Has there been any discussion of, and is there any interest in, solving the GPS vulnerability problem through the use of eLoran?
ANSWER:
Yes. Unfortunately, based on current needs form the ITS community, eLoran does not have sufficient accuracy or availability to provide sufficient backup to address the problem of GPS vulnerability. It may provide an adequate timing backup, but that is to be determined.
QUESTION:
The proposal talks about the reliance of the DGPS signal on GPS. Is the assumption being made for this project that the DGPS signals will be unaffected by the loss of GPS, that they are either out of the area of the GPS disturbance or that they have an additional temporary backup timing source?
ANSWER:
It is clear that without GPS, differential corrections cannot be generated. What is to be determined is what level of timing accuracy is required to maintain what level of range resolution based on multiple DGPS carriers. This can be maintained for some period of time with clocks at the site or a tie back to the timing reference of Loran.
QUESTION:
Given the current coverage of DGPS signals (www.navcen.uscg.gov maps) it appears that a significant number of stations will need to be installed to achieve the 3 to 4 signal coverage mentioned in the proposal. Is there a timeline specified for this infrastructure build out, or will the decision to build more DGPS sites be based, at least in part, on the results of the work proposed in this SBIR?
ANSWER:
The model used by the US Coast Guard is based on receiver technology from the 1960s or earlier. Recent studies have demonstrated that as many as six broadcasts can be received in areas where only two are providing coverage based on the model. If the end result demonstrates that additional sites are needed, then that will be addressed and the information generated by this project may be used to provide, in part, the justification for any additional sites.
QUESTION:
The proposal mentions a laptop. How portable does the receiver need to be? Are there any other design criteria that have been discussed i.e. power consumption issues, antenna constraints, price points, etc?
ANSWER:
In the first phases of this effort, the receiver must be sufficiently portable to be able to move it to a location where testing on a live broadcast can be performed. Later phases should address the critical issues of power consumption, price point, etc. This effort is intended to end in a marketable device that could be used in the automotive industry to provide the fundamental navigation solution for the Intelligent Transportation System.
Federal Railroad Administration
07-FR1 Locking Mechanism for Rotating Seats
07-FR2 Quick-release Emergency Egress Panel on Cab Car End Doors
QUESTION:
In the solicitation (07-FR1 and 07-FR2), the phrase “The objective of this effort…� is used by a list of objectives to be accomplished. We would like to clarify that “this effort� refers to both Phase I and Phase II effort. An alternative interpretation is that all of these objectives are to be accomplished in Phase I and that additional unspecified objectives are to be accomplished in the Phase II. If there are additional objectives in Phase II, are these up to the bidder to define?
ANSWER:
The objectives cover both Phase I and Phase II aspects of the project. The goal of the SBIR program is to assist small companies develop products that can be readily used in the industry. As such, these topics were written to address concerns raised by either NTSB or industry representatives in a short time frame by developing technology that is readily transferable into use.
07-FR1 Locking Mechanism for Rotating Seats
QUESTION:
What would be the best source to find the existing locking mechanisms for intercity rail passenger seats?
I’d like to get a whole picture, so I can know what needs to be done to fix the problem,
- To be able to fix the problem your having or can see as a problem I need the design plans
- Of the seat and weight of it and what it designed to hold
- Of the pedestal that the seat set on
- Of the spring locking for the seat
- Is there a power source for the seat or nearby? (air lines, hydraulic lines, electric)
ANSWER:
The bidder qualifications should include the ability to contact current seat manufacturers to get information about the seats being designed (they should also contact Amtrak and ask for how many seat designs are used in inter-city service). This is the responsibility of the bidder to be able to find this information and document it as part of their final report.
Attached is a link to a published report that discusses the performance of rotating seats under sled testing. Some of the information requested can be inferred in from this.
QUESTION:
Will the company that eventually designs the seat locking retrofit be subject to litigation in the event of passenger injuries or deaths caused by a failure of the retrofit?
ANSWER:
Historically no such litigation has occured. However, the possibility of litigation cannot be dismissed.
QUESTION:
The solicitation refers to FRA research on the undesirable effects to the rotating seats that may occur if the car rolls over. Our extensive online research has not turned up any mention of this research. In particular, we would like to know more about the forces experience by the seat during rollover, and any conclusions that FRA made about the failure mechanism of the seat rotation lock under these conditions.
ANSWER:
Reference safety recommendation R-98-056 at www.ntsb.gov to view the letter of recommendation and the correspondence history between the FRA and NTSB.
QUESTION:
Other than submitting several reports during Phase I, what other contact/technical consultation with FRA will be permitted by the contractor and/or desired by FRA?
ANSWER:
This should be a fairly independent effort, however FRA is always available to provide technical guidence and input.
QUESTION:
Does the FRA wish for passengers to continue having the ability to rotate the seats at their discretion, or it is desired to make this task controlled by train employees?
ANSWER:
Good question. I think we have to get input from operators as to how important this feature is.
QUESTION:
Does the possibility exist to have electric power delivered to each seat, in the case of a retrofit design that requires such power?
ANSWER:
The contractor should look for alternative solutions than powered solutions. Power is not readily available and the need for it would drive costs for the solution unreasonable high.
QUESTION:
Is risk assessment important in the Phase I design and, if so, are there particular safety standards that we can refer to?
ANSWER:
Reference the attached document APTA SS-C&S-016-99, Rev. 1 Standard for Row-to-Row Seating in Commuter Rail Cars. The design should be able to withstand the static and dynamic requirements, including the 4 G lateral and vertical accelerations.
QUESTION:
What would be considered a reasonable cost to the Government for retrofitting a single rotating seat with the improved locking mechanism resulting from this SBIR?
ANSWER:
This is information that should be generated in the context of the program. Answers to such questions should come from interactions with the commuter operating authorities.
QUESTION:
Will the use of this new technology be restricted to retrofits of already existing cars, or are there plans by FRA or Amtrak to implement a rotating/locking seats in future passenger rail cars?
ANSWER:
The technology is planned for retrofitting existing cars, but a good design may also be implemented in future seats as well.
QUESTION:
Will a computer simulated design be acceptable for the demonstration?
ANSWER:
No.
QUESTION:
Phase I has two deliverables: the report and the proof of concept design?
ANSWER:
Yes.
07-FR3 Continued Communication Capability in the Event of a Train-line Break in Passenger Train
QUESTION:
What are most common causes of train-line circuit break as seen by FRA on passenger trains thus far?
ANSWER:
These events are caused during a derailment or collision. When the couplers between cars break, the train separates and inter-train communication is lost.
QUESTION:
With the existing PA/intercom systems, how does the train crew become aware that the train PA/Intercom system is not operating correctly throughout all vehicles?
ANSWER:
If a collision or derailment has occured and the train has come apart the operators will be congnizant that inter-train communication is lost. However, in the event of other times when communications should occur, say a medical emergnency, the design should be able to allow the operator to tell if the system is not working.
QUESTION:
Since many existing vehicle communications systems will operate off of the car battery or auxiliary power source in the event of primary power systems loss, can it be assumed FRA is more concerned in circumstances where the actual communications line is physically damaged or disrupted preventing intelligible communications?
ANSWER:
Yes.
QUESTION:
Is FRA interested in a backup PA solution that provides one way communication (Train Crew to Passenger communication) or a 2 way solution that facilitates both PA and intercom capabilities also (passengers to train crew, & train crew to passengers)?
ANSWER:
Two-way communication. In the event that a car is damaged without crewmembers in it, passengers should be able to ask for help.
QUESTION:
Do most passenger rail vehicles conform with IEEE Std 1477-1998 IEEE Standard for Passenger Information System for Rail Transit Vehicles?
ANSWER:
Yes.
QUESTION:
Are there any other systems design and safety standards we should consider in our response beyond FRA CFR?
ANSWER:
Yes. See the standard above as well as check the APTA standards .
QUESTION:
Does FRA anticipate vehicles being retrofitted with this new capability or only new vehicles possessing this capability?
ANSWER:
The intention is that both existing and new equipment will use this technology.
QUESTION:
Does the FRA expect the solution to provide capabilities for communications with those passengers with disabilities?
ANSWER:
Yes.
QUESTION:
Can FRA provide any specifications on existing vehicle communications systems such as nominal frequency response, sound pressure levels (SPL), existing battery back-up times, ambient noise levels anticipated in vehicles?
ANSWER:
This should be the first task in the contract for the contractor to develop this type of information. At the first meeting, the contractor will be able to ask questions of most of the major commuter operating authorities.
QUESTION:
What power source is available to charge the proposed independent battery system? IE: 110 vac, 13.8 Vdc
ANSWER:
The contractor will provide an independent source of power such as batteries or hi-capacity capacitors that can be switched out according to a manufacturer's defined schedule for replacement. Batteries generally last 2-3 years while capacitors can last significantly longer.
QUESTION:
What city would the contractor need to present in the public forum information summarized from this project?
ANSWER:
The public forum will be an APTA PRESS meeting or an Emergency Preparedness RSAC meeting. Such meetings are scheduled every few months at different locations around the country. Therefore the location is to be defined in the context of conducting the work.
QUESTION:
Is this a 1-day presentation or will multiple days or locations be necessary?
ANSWER:
Generally these meetings occur over the course of a full day. It is expected that two meetings will be held: one at the initiation of the contract to get feedback from stakeholders and one at the completion of the project (for phase I).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
07-NH1 Development of Consolidated Six-Degree-of-Freedom Kinematics Sensor Array for Impact Testing
QUESTION:
We are aware of COTS sensors for 400 Hz bandwidth and 250 G's environments. DOT's specifications for 1500 Hz and 2000 G's exceeds those limits. To DOT's knowledge, are these gyros/accels on the current market? If so, we can modify our current technology, greatly accelerating the program timeline and mitigating DOT risk. If not, we can partner with a gyro/accel manufacturer to have the sensors produced.
ANSWER:
Sensors meeting the range and bandwidth requirements do currently exist and are in use by many crash testing laboratories.
QUESTION:
In the same vein, assuming that suitable COTS gyros/accels are not available, does DOT view sensor development as a critical portion of the work?
ANSWER:
Since these sensor types have been in use in crash testing environments, it is expected their development should not be a critical portion of the work. The primary intent of the work should be incorporating the sensors into a compact package with the necessary power, memory, and interface features as well as development of interface and processing software.
QUESTION:
In the solicitation, one of the required features is "on-board bridge circuitry". Could you please elaborate on why this is critical?
ANSWER:
The requirement for bridge circuitry was based on capabilities of the current sensors on the market and data acquisition compatibility, but may not be an explicit requirement depending on the capabilities of the on-board data storage system.
QUESTION:
Finally, the solicitation lists many required and desired features of the final product. Since SBIR is a 2-phase process, please provide some guidance on what the Phase 1 expectations are?
ANSWER:
Phase 1 should focus on the sensor package, data acquisition, and basic data processing routines as well as proving accuracy. Phase 2 should incorporate position and orientation self-determination, and improvements in size and mass.
07-NH2 Non Contact Roof Measurement System for Use In Dynamic Rollover Testing
QUESTION:
Do you have any specific specification about the roof grid arrangement for the required measurement, i.e. how many grid nods are needed and what the grid type is preferred?
ANSWER:
A 50 mm grid spacing would be desirable. It is also preferred that the size of the grid be sufficient to cover the roof area above a single occupant seating position. Thus if NHTSA were conducting a rollover test, the device could measure the time history of the motion of the roof above the driver seating position.
QUESTION:
What kind of the deformation scenarios do you want to target for the measurement. I would guess the roof may not be completely smashed down to the car cabin floor. Please advise if possible.
ANSWER:
The average vertical roof intrusion for rollover involved vehicles ranges from 90 to 110 mm for near/far side of rollover involved vehicles. If we average only vehicles that rollover over more than 4 quarter turns, then the average range from 120 to 150 mm. A rollover test representative of real world crash conditions would never have the roof structure deformed below the level of the window sill. This measurement device is intended to support the evaluation of test procedures and would not include scenarios where the roof structure is deformed to the vehicle floor pan. The measurements cited above do not include any lateral or longitudinal displacement which is also present during the roof deformation.
QUESTION:
The goal is to provide position and velocity information for a “grid of points on the roof�. Can you define the resolution of the gird? 1� or 2� square or ? This will have an impact on number of channels and the technology.
ANSWER:
A 50 mm grid would be desirable.
QUESTION:
What is the minimum time resolution for the data? Most vehicle data is taken at Class 60 and most video is taken at 1,000 fps. Would the minimum time resolution (to compute position and velocity) be 1,000 times per second?
ANSWER:
Class 60 data is acceptable for the frequency resolution. For the Time resolution, we are expecting roof velocities between 1 and 10 mph or 0.44 to 4.4 mm/millisecond. 1 millisecond sampling rate would be sufficient.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
07-FM1 Safety Belt Devise or Technology to Increase Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers and their Passengers
QUESTION:
The following topic has a patent caveat which was not clear to me. Are you just concerned about not infringing on someone's patent? Are we allowed to use our own proprietary technology? It is the first time I have ever seen this caveat in a SBIR topic.
ANSWER:
The purpose of the patent "caveat" is to prevent the use of limited SBIR program funds for "reinventing the wheel" and potentially infringing on someone else patent. A small business can use their own patent as long as the product is not already commercialized.
