 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
of Transportation
DTRT57-08-R-SBIR
FY08.1
New Multi-Modal Solicitation
PROGRAM SOLICITATION
Small Business Innovation Research Program
Issue Date:
April 15, 2008
Closing Date:
June 3, 2008
DOT SBIR Program Office, RTV-1A
U.S. DOT/RITA/VNTSC
55 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
Questions and Answers
Federal Highway Administration
081-FH3 Development of Equipment Washers for Invasive Plant Prevention:
-
QUESTION:
If the seeds were not there, why would we need to use the time and process to remove them?
ANSWER:
Wherever soil exists, weed seeds are assumed. We continue to learn; but believe preventative washing is the best approach for now.
-
QUESTION:
I realize that for the last 80 years we have not done a good job of control, but if we stopped doing it backwards, could we eliminate the problem in a couple of years, by stopping the production of the seeds we do not want.
ANSWER:
We are also trying to implement every best practice possible to eliminate the need for washing equipment, beginning with not planting weedy species, or asking the market to produce them.
QUESTION:
By washing the DOT vehicles doesn't stop the USDA vehicles from bringing the seeds from the field and scattering them along the road and blowing them over the fence from the field.
ANSWER:
The movement of weed seed goes both ways across fence lines. We would hope that the product will be economical and effective enough for all agencies to use.
QUESTION:
By washing the seeds from the vehicle and the working attachment, don't we cause the wash area to become a center for weed patch?
ANSWER:
Good question. We will have to devise a secure method of collecting the washed seed and disposing of them.
QUESTION:
I have talked to a number of DOT mower operators, who tell me that they are to write down where to weed patches are, so they can come back later and spray the patches. They tell me that to reduce the hard labor of dragging the spray hoe they write down only some of the patches, the easy ones to get to, I have a 6 acre Canadian patch 3 miles from my house which has been there all 7 years we have lived here and a 20 acre Bull Thistle patch right next to it. I do not blame the workers from not wanting to spray these patches, very dangerous location to be working along the road. We need to kill the weeds before they go to seed and send a chemical thru the weed stem to kill the roots at the same time.
ANSWER:
This research is all about making it easier on the mower/sprayer operators over time. And each State does what you described differently at this time.
QUESTION:
Therefore we need a machine, which will kill the plant and eliminate the seeds on the tractor tires and the implement as we mow, especially during the first mowing in the spring before flowering.
ANSWER:
Some research is being done by others to make the mow/spray elimination of weeds in one sweep. But because of seed in the soil and new infestations, we will always have to return for spot treatments.
QUESTION:
We also need to accomplish the same task thru USDA direction.
ANSWER:
Whatever we learn in this research will be shared with USDA and other Departments and agencies through a 16-agency partnership called FICMNEW.... a federal interagency weed committee.
We do not have time to reinvent the wheel within every agency. We have at least learned that much. When we begin this research, we will talk to the Department of Defense and Forest Service who have already done some work and have experience in use of equipment-washing.
We truly need to develop affordable, effective technology that uses as little water as possible for future work.
Thank you for your questions...hopefully we can all share information to find the best answer possible.
-
QUESTION:
I am interested in the topic "Development of Equipment Washers for Invasive Plant Prevention". My question is, in the market, there are some water-wash systems, what’s the main problem/complaint of the current systems?
ANSWER:
No complaints. They are not readily available. Not in large production. They are not compatible with small AND large equipment...from roadside mowers to bulldozers. They are not affordable for DOTs or contractors to purchase. Those are the reasons we put out the topic.
081-FH4 Motorcycle Detection, Classification and Characterization
QUESTION:
Can active sensors be integrated into the proposed approach?
ANSWER:
There is no technology restriction on what sensors can be proposed. The proposer must demonstrate the value of the proposed approach in the context of the solicitation requirements in the proposal. To quote the solicitation "NOTE: The specific technologies for this SBIR have not been specified.
- QUESTION:
The detection and classification of bicycles is mentioned a few times in the solicitation as a type of motorcycle. Would you please define what a motorcycle is as it relates to detection, classification, and characterization?
ANSWER:
Both motorcycles and bicycles must be detected and they must be correctly classified as to whether they are motorcycles or bicycles. Traffic monitoring systems need to correctly classify vehicles as motorcycles or bicycles in order to allow correct planning for transportation needs. Similarly, they need to correctly classify them in order for traffic control systems to take their different performance characteristics into account to facilitate both safe and efficient operation of the system.
FHWA defines vehicle classes according to the definition at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/vehclass.htm
which is related to the Traffic Monitoring guide
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tmguide/index.htm
-
QUESTION:
Is there a stated goal for the accuracy of detection, classification and characterization of motorcycles and other vehicles?
ANSWER:
At present, there is not a stated goal. However, the more accurate the tool, the better its usability for traffic operations, traffic classification and traffic monitoring. They should be more accurate then the systems currently in widespread use.
081-FH5 Open Source Microscopic Flow Model for Researchers, Universities & Special Projects
QUESTION:
Would you ask FHWA project manager to extend the Phase I research to 1 year?
ANSWER:
Discussions of whether the project can be extended to accommodate other workload considerations of small firms should not be held until after the decision to make an award has been made. We realize that small firms have more difficulty accommodating workload balancing then large firms. QUESTION:
In the element that states "Enhancement of the features and capabilities of the vehicle classes to correspond to TEXAS for use on VII and ICM Research?" Please elaborate on what ICM Research expects from this phase I
ANSWER:
The emphasis here is on providing the features and capabilities of the vehicle classes present in the TEXAS model to the enhanced microscopic simulation model. This would allow vehicles to be passed back and forth transparently between the two open source models without losing data on vehicle characteristics and features. This capability is important for vehicles to travel transparently through a transportation corridor while passing through key intersections which one might wish to model nanoscopically with the TEXAS model.
Note: The TEXAS model information can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEXAS_Model QUESTION:
In the item that says "(6) Simulation of light rail and heavy rail trains and grade crossings for safety research." Please elaborate on what will be expected from this Phase I research?
ANSWER:
The purpose of Phase I is defined in the paragraph: "Phase I: Develop prototype open source software to demonstrate the proposer's abilities to modify and enhance the architecture and maintainability of the Microscopic Flow Model based on the same code base as Corsim base." This paragraph does not define what portions of code might be developed and documented to provide the demonstration. This is left up to the individual proposers to define and defend in their proposal.
081-FH6 Low Cost Structural Monitoring Technology/Turning Structural Monitoring Data into Decision-Making Information
QUESTION:
What is the anticipated timeframe of the historical (e.g., over 6 months, 10 years, etc.) information the system should maintain, and should be able to analyze?
ANSWER:
That will depend on why the owner is instrumenting the bridge. If it is for diagnostic purposes, it may only be for a week or a month; if it is for longer-term performance monitoring, it could be a permanent installation. QUESTION:
To what extent will be system be applied to fixed installations (permanent attachment & provided access to power utilities), as opposed to portable, implying temporary attachment & battery operation.
ANSWER:
Similar answer as above. QUESTION:
Please Identify desired system monitoring functionality: local (on-site) or remote & desired communication protocol (wireless via cell phone, WAN, or satellite; or hard wired via landline, cable, DSL ISP).
ANSWER:
This will not impact the objective of the SBIR solicitation. QUESTION:
What are the types of bridges to be monitored?
ANSWER:
Could be any type of bridge, but most likely, larger and more complex structures (i.e., not the more typical short-span slab on girder bridges) QUESTION:
Is a particular bridge or bridges being consider for evaluation in Phase II?
ANSWER:
Will not be decided until Phase II QUESTION:
What are the thoughts on the User Interface? Do you desire a dashboard view of the whole system, each bridge, etc.? Should raw data be accessible? Should evaluation/notification criteria be UI accessible?
ANSWER:
That's part of what the proposer needs to address. QUESTION:
What existing sensors and systems should the intelligent monitoring system process information from?
ANSWER:
The proposer needs to be cognizant of what the current state of technology is, and should address this himself. QUESTION:
The topic seems to be focused on analysis of data produced by existing sensors, and does not involve development of new sensors. Is this interpretation of the topic accurate?
ANSWER:
Yes QUESTION:
Are there examples of models that predict structural behavior that should be incorporated?
ANSWER:
That is for the proposer to determine.
Federal Railroad Administration
081-FR1 Compact Autonomous Track Geometry Measurement System
QUESTION:
What is the expectation for length of time the Geometry Measurement System should operate on its own power source (how long should the batteries last)?
ANSWER:
Ideally, it should have solar panels or other means to recharge. We like to be able to install it on any railroad car and send it in different routes across the country.
QUESTION:
What is the expectation for recharging the power source? Can it be assumed that the device would periodically return to a yard where it can be attached to standard power? Can we assume access to standard voltages available on the rail car from which recharge power can be drawn?
ANSWER:
Solar panels or any other means. We cannot assume that we can use any power source from the car/locomotive or any place in the yard.
QUESTION:
Non-contact, autonomous Track Geometry Systems are commercially available. What are the main deficiencies in the commercial units that you seek to have remedied through this SBIR solicitation?
ANSWER:
The current systems do not have their own power source. We like to have a system which is more compact and easier to install on any car. Also we like to receive the data automatically.
QUESTION:
The existing commercial systems claim to be able to attach to any rail car. Considering this, can you give expectations of dimensions for what you consider "compact"?
ANSWER:
:In general the current systems require a rigid beam that can be installed on the truck frame or the car body. The beam has many sensors for measuring the accelerations and rate of rotation of the beam, optical devices to measure the track gage and axle mounted tachometer to measure distance and speed. We like to see if we can make the system smaller by using more compact sensors, and a different method for measuring track gage, and distance traveled along the track.
QUESTION:
Does have its own power source mean that there will be no hardwired power provided? If so, how often is it acceptable to replace a battery? Would energy harvesting options be considered?
ANSWER:
Yes. The desired product should be independent from train power source and if a battery is used it should last for weeks or ideally 3 months. It could be recharged using solar panels or any other source for charging.
QUESTION:
The solicitation says "compact" are there limitations that we should know about as far as size and mass?
ANSWER:
Compact means something that can be installed on a vehicle with minimum space required from the locomotive or the car. The current technology is using a beam with multiple sensors and data collection boxes. The device should be able to fit under the vehicle without interfering with vehicle operation and without interfering with any of track components.
QUESTION:
Could you describe the common datum points (or point us in the direction of a technical reference) for rail measurements?
ANSWER:
Track geometry measurements are intended to characterize the position of each rail sufficiently for the purposes of identifying critical geometry deviations (safety hazards as defined in the Federal Track Safety Standards) and for conducting simulations involving track-train dynamics. The general interest is in spatial frequency content that could induce vehicle dynamics. For typical rail vehicle construction, derivations from a wavelength of a few inches to several hundred feet are of interest. The significance of the long wavelength components generally begins to diminish at about 200 feet and up, depending upon the maximum vehicle speed.
In accordance with the discussion above, at each location along the track, the position of the rail is measured as deviations from an average rail position. For checking compliance with FRA allowable thresholds, the Track Safety Standards define maximum allowable irregularities in terms of deviations from uniformity. Uniformity is average rail position and is defined in the rule. Track geometry input for analytical simulations typically is referred to as "pseudo-space curve" which consists of track deviations from an average rail position (i.e. with both long wavelength and d.c. components removed).
Gage and cross level are absolute measurements of the distance between the two rails at each location along the track. These are measured by in a coordinate system in the plane of the rails established by a beam connecting the tops of each rail.
-
QUESTION:
The 'height' of a rail, when measured by a moving train, will presumably be referenced to a datum on the train. Therefore, will a relative measurement relative to the train be ok, or do you need an absolute measurement (and if so, what is the datum)?
ANSWER:
A measurement relative to the train will be OK, however since the vehicle is moving, a convenient fixed coordinate system is not available. For this reason, instrumentation is used to track vehicle displacements and rotations it moves along the track. Also, when measurements are on moving vehicles, as vehicle speeds increase, the dynamic properties of the measuring system are of increasing importance.
QUESTION:
Do you expect to use this on 'rusty' rails - i.e. rusty rails have significantly different optical properties - reflectivity / thermal emission - to the normally seen shiny/polished rail.
ANSWER:
Yes. It will be used on any kind of conditions: rain, mud, snow, rust. In most of the time the running surface of the rail will be shiny.
QUESTION:
Could you comment whether: http://www.abtus.com/Rail/Glossary/glossary.htm is a reasonable definition of terms ?
ANSWER:
This site has some of the terms. You can check FRA Track Safety Standards Rule and compliance Manual to understand the measurements and terms better. http://www.atipsafety.com you can look at compliance manual Section C has geometry terms.
QUESTION:
Have you investigated optical techniques before and do you foresee any issues with them. For example, would this device operate in snow/leaves, and would the technology have to 'image' through the debris to see the rail underneath. Or, would it be acceptable to detect that debris is on the line at the measurement point ?
ANSWER:
We are using optical and laser techniques now. The system has problems when the lenses get dirty or when snow is too high on the rail, etc.
081-FR2 In-Motion Rail Temperature Measurement Unit:
QUESTION:
Can you tell me how this data will be used? I understand that it can be used to calculate thermal stress in the track but how is that useful in a train traveling at up to 125MPH?
ANSWER:
There are a few reasons for wanting to obtain a continuous, high-speed rail temperature measurement system. Most fundamentally, it would allow a locomotive engineer to detect an unusually high rail temperature and take the necessary actions, such as reducing speed. Other reasons for wanting rail temperature data is to modify / improve current rail temperature prediction models that are being developed. The measured rail temperatures could serve as a means of correcting and refining the rail temperature prediction models. Finally, many sensor technologies are sensitive to changes in temperature. Many of these technologies may need to be temperature-compensated if they are ever used in close proximity to the rail. The current system would provide the data for such compensation.
QUESTION:
Is there an opportunity for a hardwired data line or does the system need to provide its data wirelessly?
ANSWER:
There is an opportunity for a hardwired data line. However, a wireless solution would be preferable but may not be practical due to the potential sources of noise on a locomotive.
QUESTION:
What frequency does the real time data need to report at?
ANSWER:
The system should report rail temperature measurements at a rate of at least 20 samples per second, but preferably over 50 samples per second.
QUESTION:
What is the typical use case for the desired solution?
ANSWER:
The typical use case for the desired system would include recording rail temperature data from the undercarriage of an in-service locomotive.
QUESTION:
Is the desired solution a portable or permanent solution?
ANSWER:
The desired system would be a permanent fixture mounted on the undercarriage of a locomotive.
-
QUESTION:
Does the solution developed have access to the train's network (if available)?
- If so, what networks are available on the locomotive?
- Wired - Ethernet
- Wireless
ANSWER:
The system developed would not have access to the train's network. The data should be collected and viewable in real-time via an onboard laptop. The data flow from the sensors to the laptop could be achieved via a direct cable or could potentially include a short-range wireless solution capable of communication between the undercarriage of the locomotive and the engineer's cabin.
-
QUESTION:
Viewable Real-Time Data streams
- Is this viewable from the engineers cabin - Train specific
- Is this viewable from a remote site collecting data from several trains?
ANSWER:
The data stream should be viewable from a laptop located in the engineer's cabin of the locomotive. Under Phase I, the unit would not be incorporated with any other systems on the train, so the laptop would have dedicated use specifically for the In-Motion Rail Temperature Measurement Unit.
-
QUESTION:
I am interested in the topic "In-Motion Rail Temperature Measurement Unit". Do you know what temperature range should the unit be working on? -30 degree C to +50 degree C good enough?
ANSWER:
To cover extreme situations, the unit should be capable of measuring over a range from -30 degrees C to +80 degrees C.
QUESTION:
Are there any systems currently in use for measuring rail temperatures? If so, what are their major deficiencies?
ANSWER:
There are not currently any commercial systems in use for measuring rail temperatures from a moving platform. QUESTION:
Why is it important to record this temperature information?
ANSWER:
There are a few reasons for wanting to obtain a continuous, high-speed rail temperature measurement system. Most fundamentally, it would allow a locomotive engineer to detect an unusually high rail temperature and take the necessary actions, such as reducing speed to potentially avoid a buckling situation. Other reasons for wanting rail temperature data is to modify / improve current rail temperature prediction models that are being developed. The measured rail temperatures could serve as a means of correcting and refining the rail temperature prediction models. Finally, many sensor technologies are sensitive to changes in temperature. Many of these technologies may need to be temperature-compensated if they are ever used in close proximity to the rail. The current system would provide the data for such compensation.
081-FR3 Non-Contact Distance Measuring Device:
QUESTION:
Concerning the above topic, I am hoping you can answer a general question. The SBIR program is intended to fund technology development that is innovative and therefore involves some inherent risk. That being said, would your agency consider GPS (global positioning system) technology a viable candidate for this project?
ANSWER:
The desired device will be used to measure the distance and direction along the track. This device will be used as a triggering mechanism for many other distance based measurement systems like track geometry or rail profile systems. It is required to be able to collect the data at least at one foot interval in any condition including tunnels. Based on our understanding of current GPS technology, it is not possible to use it in tunnels or some other situations.
QUESTION:
What is the drawback to the current tachometer based system? Why does it need to be replaced?
ANSWER:
The current tachometer is attached to the axle and uses the wheel diameter and wheel rotation to calculate the speed and distance along the track and the direction of the train. We like to have something that does not need to connect to the outside of the axle which could be hit by debris. Also, because it relies on the wheel diameter and since the wheel diameter changes at different life stage for the wheel then it requires frequent calibration.
QUESTION:
Are there critical heights or areas above a track that are excluded from having appendages hang below them?
ANSWER:
Anything installed should be at least 3" above the top of the rail.
QUESTION:
Is a penetration of the floor of a car for the purpose of routing electrical leads allowed?
ANSWER:
Yes. The desired system will be used as a triggering mechanism for other distance based measuring device, like track geometry measurement system.
QUESTION:
Are there mounting spots for sensors under a car that have the same vertical motions as a
wheel, i.e. can an attachment be made that is in the wheel frame of reference?
ANSWER:
NO. The current device being used is a tachometer mounted at the end of the axle to measure the wheel revolution.
QUESTION:
Do all tracks include a tie plate that extends roughly 3 inches beyond the rail from a top view
perspective?
ANSWER:
No. If you are on the wood tie track you will have the tie plate but on other types of track like concrete tie track you will not have it.
QUESTION:
How many Distance Measuring Device systems are envisioned assuming technical success and
reasonable cost?
ANSWER:
A successful device could be used on most of the equipments that need distance and speed measurements. FRA has 6 vehicle and railroads have many track measurement equipments and high railers that could use a device like this.
QUESTION:
What is typical acceleration/deceleration rate for the train?
What is the max acceleration/deceleration rate for the train?
ANSWER:
Typical (service) Maximum (Emergency)
Train braking characteristics vary according to the type of braking system, train weight, etc.
Passenger
- Braking Rate (Service): 1.7 - 2.0 mph/s (0.077 - 0.091 g)
- Braking Rate (Emergency): 2.5 mph/s (0.114 g)
Freight
- Braking Rate (Service): 0.07 mph/s (0.032 g)
- Braking Rate (Emergency): 1.0 mph/s (0.046 g)
QUESTION:
Error of 5 feet per mile. Does this error accumulate? So in 100 miles you would have 500 foot error? What is driving this standard?
ANSWER:
No, the error does not accumulate. Most track geometry measurement systems are measuring geometry parameters based on distance traveled along the track. We need to collect all these geometry parameters at one foot interval. In some applications, the data is being collected at much smaller intervals.
-
QUESTION:
Can we assume we have access to differential GPS?
ANSWER:
Yes. But no signal in tunnels and some other situations.
-
QUESTION :
Are you looking for a device on every train car?
ANSWER:
Originally only for track geometry measurement or test vehicles. But, it could be possible to use it on many trains in connection to track measurement devices.
-
QUESTION:
What is the final application? What is this data being used for? Do we need to transmit this info? Is it a navigation app or situational awareness app?
ANSWER:
The final application is a replacement for tachometer which is currently being used in most track geometry measuring cars or track data collection systems that are collecting data on distance based. The output from this device will be used to track the distance traveled and provide a triggering mechanism for data collection systems onboard train.
-
QUESTION:
What cost/device are anticipating?
ANSWER:
The cost has to be comparable to the current tachometer cost.
-
QUESTION:
What level of maintenance is acceptable to your for our proposed solution?
ANSWER:
The device should require very minimal maintenance. One of the potential uses of this device is to be used in autonomous data collection systems. Also, the final device should survive the harsh railroad environment.
-
QUESTION:
Is the data needed is real-time (time now), or is the a post-processing application? Is a delay of 5-10 minutes acceptable?
ANSWER:
The data is needed in real-time. The data will be used to trigger data collection for other sensors onboard the train.
QUESTION:
Is the desired solution is to replace the current tachometers fielded, can you provide a reference URL with technical information, vendors and unit and volume cost?
ANSWER:
The current tachometer that we are trying to replace is providing 1000 pulse per revolution and is capable of measuring distance in forward/backward directions. This can provide triggering mechanism for collecting geometry or any other space based data at about 1 foot interval. In some other applications it is desired to use the tachometer to trigger the data collection system at much finer resolution. We have applications that we need to use a tachometer that produce 10,000 pulse per revolution.
-
QUESTION:
Regarding other technical information - what other equipment would the desired solution need to interface with data collection devices in the short and near term?
ANSWER:
The tachometer should be able to measure the distance both in forward and reverse direction. It will be used to calculate the distance traveled along the track, calculate speed, and also provide a mechanism to trigger on board data collection systems that are distance based. (1 data point at every foot or in some cases much finer)
QUESTION:
It would appear that installation and use of balises for the purpose of reducing distance measurement error is beyond the scope of this topic due to cost and possible sustainment effort. Do you consider this a valid statement?
ANSWER:
Yes. We are looking for something that we can install on the vehicle and use it with a minimum of effort.
QUESTION:
Do you expect actual railway / rail car data to be employed during concept feasibility analyses in Phase 1?
ANSWER:
We need to make sure that we can use this device in the railroad environment. Therefore, we like to test a prototype on a rail car.
QUESTION:
Are modifications to the track allowed such as the addition of markers or placing passive sensor on or near the track?
ANSWER:
There are more than 100,000 miles of track. It is desirable not to do anything with the track or install anything on the track.
081-FR4 Non-Contact Track Gage Measurement Device:
QUESTION:
Would it be acceptable to use a device to "clear" snow from the measurement path?
ANSWER:
The current technology is working with snow unless snow in high on the rail. The desired device should be able to measure the track gage which is measured 5/16 " below the top of the rail. Currently, if the snow or mud or ballast is high in the track the optical system cannot make this measurement.
QUESTION:
What power is available for the device?
ANSWER:
This device will be integrated to a geometry measurement system that will have power. Since our goal is to use this in an autonomous Track measurement system, the power requirement should not be too excessive.
QUESTION:
Do you definitely need a testing system that is maintenance-free and cleaning-free, forever?
ANSWER:
We are looking for a system that can operate in adverse weather conditions. If any optical device is used then dust, snow, mud, etc will be a problem. The ideal system will be non contact non optical. Our goal is to have something that does not need any maintenance for about 3 month of operation.
QUESTION:
If not, how regular of maintenance (cleaning) is acceptable? (every 10k miles? Or every 20k miles?)
ANSWER:
We are looking for a system that can operate in adverse weather conditions for up to 3 months.
QUESTION:
Is this topic looking for innovative solutions/new products for high-speed track Gage Measurement that no current products can achieve, or looking for more cost-effective solutions to replace some expensive products in the market?
ANSWER:
Yes. The current technology is using optical and lasers to measure the track gage. With current technology we cannot measure the track gage under some conditions like when the lenses get dirty by mud, snow, grease or when we have high snow or ballast coverage. Prior to optical system we were using mechanical systems with wheels touching the rail gage face to measure the track gage. One of many applications of this device is to install it on track geometry measurement car to measure the track gage without needing an operator for frequent maintenance or cleaning.
QUESTION:
What's the expectation of the phase-I delivery? Do we need to deliver a solid product in phase-I, or we may present a design with an in-lab demo to prove the design and demonstrate the performance?
ANSWER:
In Phase one we like to have a prototype device that can be tested on a rail vehicle.
QUESTION:
What is the typical use case for the desired solution?
ANSWER:
The desired device will be installed on a rail vehicle and measures the track gage in accordance to FRA track safety standard. This system must be able to operate in railroad environment. It should not need regular maintenance or cleaning. And it should work in situation where, snow or ballast is high on the track.
QUESTION:
Is the desired solution a portable or permanent solution?
ANSWER:
The desired device will be mounted under a rail vehicle or locomotive and it will be used as part of a geometry measurement system.
QUESTION:
Does the solution developed have access to the train's network (if available)?
- If so, what networks are available on the locomotive?
- Wired - Ethernet
- Wireless
ANSWER:
No.
- If not, can we implement a network on the locomotive to collect the data?
ANSWER:
The device should be able to collect the gage and record it. Then the gage will be used as part of geometry measurement system. The data collection system should be close to the source. We should expect to put it in the locomotive.
- If not, can we stream data real-time via cellular network from the locomotive?
ANSWER:
Most of geometry data will be collected at one foot interval. If the proposed solution needs to send the data via cellular network, again the antenna and communication device should be close to the car where the device is installed. We cannot expect to put the device on one car and the communication device on another car or the locomotive.
QUESTION:
Viewable Real-Time Data streams
- Is this viewable from the engineers cabin - Train specific
- Is this viewable from a remote site collecting data from several trains?
ANSWER:
- Initially, the desired device will be used in a test vehicle. The successful device will be implemented to a complete geometry measurement system.
- Eventually, we will like to use this device in an autonomous track geometry measurement system that can be installed on many vehicles. The data from the autonomous geometry measurement systems will be sent to web servers and we will access the data using a web browser.
-
QUESTION:
I see some products (expensive) can measure a lot more parameters than just track gage. My understanding is, for this solicitation, you focus on track gage, which is defined as "the distance or width between the inner edges of the heads of the rails, am I right?
ANSWER:
We are only interested in measuring track gage as defined in FRA Track Safety Standards Part 213, Subpart C. Track gage is measured between the heads of the rails at the right-angles to the rail in a plane five-eights of inch below the top of the rail head.
081-PH1 Pipeline Safety:
— Development of Tools for In-field Pipeline Repairs
— Nanotechnology Tools for Internal Corrosion Pipelines
QUESTION:
Are only nano technology solutions being considered for internal corrosion measurement? Does the patch solution need to be carbon fiber based?
ANSWER:
Yes, only nano technology solutions will be considered. All others will be returned as non-responsive.
Yes, all others will be returned as non-responsive. Recent usage of fiber reinforced composite repair patches have led to their increased usage across other industries. A carbon fiber patch repair could offer an alternative to welding as the strength is claimed to be comparable.
QUESTION:
The topic for pipeline safety deals with new tools for post-repair after major damage occurs. In our case, we are developing self-healing composites which will arrest minor cracks before they become catastrophic, thus greatly extending the pipe lifetime. Would this approach be outside the scope of this topic?
ANSWER:
The individual can consider submitting a proposal to the focus area titled "Development of Tools for In-field Pipeline Repairs". I do suggest that we are not looking for theoretical research for a completely new approach. We are interested in a technology that may have been developed for another application. This technology needs to be far enough in the development cycle to allow for a laboratory study. The study will demonstrate the feasibility of the Technology to provide data that supports long term performance testing. In addition to guidelines and cost associated with their recommended method/practice to install the repair patch.
081-PH2 Hazardous Materials:
— Methods for Transmitting and Transferring Material Shipment Information Electronically
— Improvement of Data Collection from Incidents Involving Hazardous Materials
— Using Handheld Devices to Assist in Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents
-
QUESTION:
Since there will be only one award for 081-PH2, my company wants to address the right topic, more precisely with our proposal. What this company is going to propose is a (left blank to protect the proposer) - My questions are:
- Which sub-topic shall my company submit its proposal to?
- Do you think our project will be a good fit with the solicitation topics?
ANSWER:
- It doesn't really matter which sub-topic the proposal is submitted under. They will all be looked at collectively. In reading your description, it seems that your proposal seems like the closest fit would be #3, however, as I said it doesn't really matter.
- In terms of your brief description of your proposal, I would say that it seems to be in the spirit of the described subtopics. However, a lot depends on the other proposals as well as the actual write-up of yo
ur proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
