 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
of Transportation
DTRT57-09-R-SBIR1
FY09.1
PROGRAM SOLICITATION
Small Business Innovation Research Program
Issue Date:
Febuary 13, 2009
Closing Date:
April 15, 2009
DOT SBIR Program Office, RVA-21
U.S. DOT/RITA/VNTSC
55 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
Questions and Answers
Federal Highway Administration
091-FH2 Development of a Thermographic Device for Evaluating Integrity of Steel Bridge Coatings Nondestructively
-
QUESTION:
For the remote inspection in the field, i.e. for the instrument located on the ground to the (overhanging) bridge structures, would it be possible to restrict presence of people in the immediate vicinity of the measurement site, especially the one on the bridge itself? Ideally, a bridge would be closed to all traffic across it (maybe late at night) for the duration of any measurements, but that could be unfeasible.
Another option would be to have a safety worker locally restricting access to the immediate measurement site on the bridge, for a short duration. We can also delineate our test area with some sort of warning lights.
Basically, we need help with operational dynamics of the bridges and traffic management, in terms of feasibility and acceptable practices. Real-life examples would be invaluable.
ANSWER:
We need NDE systems that are not potentially harmful to human and animals. If additional cautions/safety measures are required to deploy certain inspection instruments, it cannot be widely accepted by ordinary bridge inspectors and maintenance engineers. Therefore, such systems are not what we are looking for.
-
QUESTION:
Is there a cost target for the completed system?
ANSWER:
When a research prototype is being developed, there is no limit on cost of the system as long as total project budget does not exceed the overall project ceiling, which is $750k if the selected system is able to get the 2nd phase. However, when the final product is commercialized, it should be comparable to other common bridge inspection NDE tools.
-
QUESTION:
Are there limitations as to the size and weigh of the system?
ANSWER:
The fully developed system should be portable and manageable by a single operator. Also, it should be able to be carried onto common elevated work platforms, boats, and bridge inspection vehicles such as snoopers and underside carriages permanently mounted on the bridge superstructures. Such requirements mean that the size should be smaller than typical carry-on bags and it should be operated by its own battery power.
-
QUESTION:
The solicitation description indicates that Phase II should conclude with successful field trials on five bridge structures. I was hoping you could tell me what bridges are these?
ANSWER:
We do not have specific bridges for the Phase II yet. It is too early to have a list of the bridges as we do not know outcomes of the Phase I. However, the bridges will be selected based on many factors including location (severe to mild corrosivity), type of steel girders (structural shape), and type of coating systems on the steel (three-coat, two-coat, etc.).
-
QUESTION:
The "typical" DOT Phase I project is $100K/6 months, but in the specific solicitation instructions it reads that a working prototype (to be fully developed in Phase II) falls within the Phase I, 12 month scope. Is this a 6 or 12 month effort, and at what point does a prototype need to be demonstrated?
ANSWER:
The duration of the Phase I study for this solicitation is 12 months. If the contractor can fulfill the contract requirements of the Phase I within 6 months, it is even better.
-
QUESTION:
Is this specifically for "thermographic" devices, or will other NDE devices be considered?
ANSWER:
We are interested in thermographic-based technologies only.
-
QUESTION:
What type of samples need to be imaged for the Phase I? What is the materials that are of interest? Can we get samples from DOT? Should we work with local DOT for validation? Are there any metrics the authors are looking for around specificity or sensitivity?
ANSWER:
Typical high performance steel bridge coatings are of our interest. If the selected contractor does not have appropriate test panels, FHWA can provide them. Also, if necessary, the contractor can utilize FHWA Coatings and Corrosion Lab space and large size specimens that are readily available.
The validation process will be made through FHWA Coatings and Corrosion Laboratory.
The contractor should demonstrate that the proposed NDE system is able to detect coating degradation within +/- 10% of actual condition in terms of affected areas.
-
QUESTION:
Will NDT methods other than Thermographic methods be considered responsive to the solicitation (if they otherwise meet the stated goals of the topic)?
ANSWER:
We focus on thermographic NDE methods only.
-
QUESTION:
Is it an absolute requirement that the method detect disbondment or the coating in order to be responsive? For example, would it be sufficient to detect the chemical/mechanical condition of the coating (as evidenced by the shrinkage.embattlement) which is a precursor to debonding?
ANSWER:
We are looking for NDE technologies that can detect imminent macroscopic coating failures that can be utilized by ordinary bridge inspectors.
-
QUESTION:
Would RFID sensor communication (short range passive without batteries or longer range active with batteries) be responsive to the communication requirements of the solicitation?
ANSWER:
We are NOT interested in sensor approaches.
-
QUESTION:
Would the authors consider THz and layered 3D imaging thermographic?
ANSWER:
As long as it is safe to operate in ordinary bridge inspection environments, we are interested. However, the offerer should determine its adequacy based on their technical evaluation with respect to the guidance provided in the solicitation.
-
QUESTION:
Application of thermographic NDE could be performed with or without an active heating source? Do you have any reservations towards the employment of active heat sources, in particular, inductive heating or high-energy flash light heating?
ANSWER:
As long as it can be practical to employ in the field, it does not matter.
-
QUESTION:
What are the target locations on the bridge?
ANSWER:
Anywhere coatings are installed, especially near the leaky joints.
-
QUESTION:
What are the limitations of the current approach (time, labor, training, etc.)?
ANSWER:
There are no reliable NDE tools that bridge inspectors can use to evaluate coatings unless they are visibly deteriorated in the forms of rusting, blistering, and peeling.
091-FH3 Vehicle Detection, Counting and Tracking System for Travel Surveys, Traffic Safety Systems and Traffic Control Systems
-
QUESTION:
I have an idea for a vehicle based speed limit detection and warning system?
ANSWER:
The requirement is for a vehicle detection, counting and tracking system which would produce data which can be used for travel surveys. Thus, a speed limit detection and warning system would be out of scope.
-
QUESTION:
Please provide a clarification on the part of the program description that says - The program description indicates that "The concept should build on advanced versions of existing sensor technologies which would be able to use existing sensor infrastructure to more accurately…". What is the existing sensor infrastructure? Is it cables, poles, equipment cabinets, etc.? Or more specific, like inductive loop sensors embedded in pavement?
ANSWER:
The project should take better advantage of existing in roadway or over roadway sensors such as (1) in roadway - loops and magnetometers or alternatively (2) over roadway - video, radar, etc. No, cables, poles, and cabinets are not existing sensor infrastructure although they may be related to it in roadway and over roadway sensors are frequently connected with cables and over roadway sensors are frequently mounted on poles.
-
QUESTION:
We have a proven sensor technology capable of counting, classifying, and measuring the speed of vehicles in multiple lanes. It is a portable XYZ technology based system that can be situated on the side of the road.
ANSWER:
The question is whether this sensor system is part of the "existing sensor infrastructure" or would be a new sensor system which the jurisdiction would have to deploy. Recall that the purpose is to help jurisdictions to take better advantage of the infrastructure which they already own. The SBIR is to develop elements like improved algorithms, processing boards, or sensor elements which could be installed in/with the existing sensor infrastructure. We desire enhancement of already existing infrastructure at a moderate cost rather then a brand new sensor technology which must be fully implemented from scratch at a significantly higher cost.
-
QUESTION:
In order for us to build some algorithms, we would need to get hold of some already available videos of lone motorcycles or bicycles approaching intersections. We assume that the DOT would have such data available for us. Is this a fair assumption? How could we go about obtaining this data from the DOT, so as to include the source in our proposal?
ANSWER:
It is up to the offeror to determine what technologies to build on and how to build on them. Therefore, it is up to the offeror to collect any data needed for their proposal. The DOT will not be supplying data samples from any given technology.
091-FH4 Pedestrian Detection, Counting and Tracking Systems for Travel Surveys, Traffic Safety Systems and Traffic Control Systems
-
QUESTION:
How can an open-source requirement be justified in light of SBIR Data Rights?
ANSWER:
The open source requirement applies only to software and algorithms developed under this SBIR. It does not apply to software developed internally by a firm or under other projects or activities. The SBIR contractor may release one copy of the software and algorithms under an open source license while keeping a separate copy under a proprietary license. There are many organizations in the open source world that do this. This provides the private organization the opportunity to continue to grow the software and concepts and make profits.
The requirement was made to facilitate future research and development of counting and tracking. Since these are public funds they should be spent in a way which maximizes public benefit while encouraging small businesses to prosper.
The open source requirement does not apply to hardware nor to the company’s software. The company may use both its proprietary software and the newly developed software and algorithms in equipment so long as they are in separate programs similar to the way that both proprietary and open source software are used on Linux systems in conjunction with each other.
-
QUESTION:
Phase I is to be demonstrated at the TFHRC IVI, which is instrumented with VII technology including Dedicated Short-Range Communication (DSRC) radios. Are RFID tags an acceptable solution?
ANSWER:
No. FHWA has previously researched the use of pedestrian tags and driver alerting. The solutions worked perfectly. They had several issues, none technological, that effectively restricted their use to school zones including (1) getting pedestrians to wear tags (2) getting drivers to pay attention to the alerts (3) high incidences of false alarms. School children in school areas can be encouraged by their parents to wear the tags and drivers in school areas seem willing to exert extra effort to paying attention for children.
-
QUESTION:
Does the offeror need to address the Phase III funding commitment (mentioned in Evaluation Criteria 1-b) in Phase I proposal?
ANSWER:
No
-
QUESTION:
Should cameras and other hardware be part of the offeror's Phase-I budget?
ANSWER:
The offeror must determine.
-
QUESTION:
In regards to the following sentence in the solicitation: "The offeror should explain and justify their approach in their proposal and why it would be an improvement over existing approaches." Is what meant here by existing approaches other sensor modalities that are currently being used in pedestrian detection such as microwave and IR break-beam etc.? or other video based detection? Can you reference any video based person detection systems used in traffic applications of demonstrations?
ANSWER:
The offeror must determine.
-
QUESTION:
Would we be permitted to add the target classification, counting and other functions to be developed under this SBIR into the already functioning Labview software? (That is required to demonstrate under LINUX?) We are MathCad users and would document the algorithms developed under this SBIR in MathCad, but we would code them into the functioning LabView system for development with stored real data and live demonstrations. Is this acceptable?
ANSWER:
It would depend on how / what form the components already exist in. The solution may be entirely hardware solution. Does the offeror's solution ride on top of a hardware product that already exists and simply adds algorithms to process it better. Does the offeror already have a proprietary software solution and is proposing to use it as a turnkey element in this project on top of hardware that will be developed? There are too many combinations possible for the SBIR program to dictate the contents. Again, it is up to the offeror to come up with what they feel is their solution and propose it.
091-FH5 Self-Sustaining, Intelligent Pavement Systems
-
QUESTION:
What Technology Readiness Level (TRL) would you like to see in Phase I? Does Phase I require to build a prototype? Will modeling and simulation of self-sustaining intelligent pavement system be convincing in Phase I?
ANSWER:
The technology readiness level should be somewhere between developed and available. In other words, components of the technology may already be available, but have never been put together in a manner that satisfies this solicitation. Phase I includes a detailed concept that demonstrates the viability of creating a prototype that satisfies the attributes described in the solicitation to the maximum extent possible or practical. Therefore, viability would include a description of the technology, how it works with existing infrastructure, how it will be sustainable, potential demonstration project applications and how much it will cost to build the prototype given the funding constraints of Phase II. Phase II involves fabricating and demonstrating a working prototype.
-
QUESTION:
Are there any references you would like to share?
ANSWER:
Green Highways Partnership: http://www.greenhighways.org/
Sustainable Pavements for New Member States: http://videolectures.net/tra08_turk_spnms/
Solar Roadways: http://www.solarroadways.com
Inhabitat: http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/08/30/could-solar-freeways-power-our-cities/
CleanTechnican: http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/13/oregon-launching-first-solar-highway-in-the-us/
PeakEnergy: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2009/02/german-solar-highway-nears-completion.html
Aggregate Research: http://www.aggregateresearch.com/article.aspx?id=14529
-
QUESTION:
Other than FHWA goals, are there any tests you would like to see in Phase I?
ANSWER:
- % material coming from recycled or waste stream
- Energy generation, transmission and/or storage potential
- Load bearing capacity
- Constructability and durability
- Life-cycle cost
- Public and private partnership potential for bringing technology to market.
-
QUESTION:
The solicitation refers to DOE and EPA interest in Phase II. Do you anticipate cost sharing with either of these agencies in Phase II? Will DOE or EPA personnel be involved in recommending Phase II funding?
ANSWER:
This depends largely on the success of the phase I and our engagement of the other agencies.
Federal Motor Carries Safety Administration
091-FM1 Individualized Fatigue Risk Management in Trucking Operations
QUESTION:
I am looking into the upcoming DOT RFP topic "Individualized Fatigue Risk Management in Trucking Operations," and I would like to determine if the data from the 2004 FMCSA trucker study will be available to program awardees. And if so, is it available now or only under contract?
ANSWER:
The data will be available to the contract awardee. FMCSA indicated that the data is not necessary for potential respondents to complete their proposal submission.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration
091-PH1 Pipeline Safety: Development of in-field pipeline inspection tools
QUESTION:
Is the inspection performed from the outside of the pipeline, or from the inside of the pipelines (e.g., by a robot)?
ANSWER:
Outside the pipeline
QUESTION:
Is it OK to assume that we will have direct access to the surface to be inspected – that is pipeline is not under water or under ground?
ANSWER:
The easiest path would be if the pipe were exposed. However, if your technology were to work with a buried pipe either underground or below water that may be considered as an advantage over other technical solutions. In these cases applicant needs to describe the depth of coverage their approach will be able to penetrate and still obtain a legal reading of the dent or defect.
QUESTION:
What is typical size (both depth and lateral) and shape of dents and wrinkles to be inspected?
ANSWER:
The applicant needs to specify in their application the performance parameters of their technical solution. We suggest that applicant define both the size and depth of the dent their system will be able to identify.
QUESTION:
What is the pipeline material? Is it coated or painted?
ANSWER:
Coated steels as regulated by Pipeline Safety Regulations 49 CFR Parts 190-195
QUESTION:
Are there any specific requirements to
- spatial resolution of surface deformation profiling
- speed of inspection
- cost of inspection
ANSWER:
- applicant is recommended to quantify the spatial resolution of their inspection approach
- applicant is recommended to quantify the time to complete the inspection (seconds/minutes per dent or feature) and the time necessary to analyze the data collected. (hours, day, weeks)
- applicant is recommended to quantify the cost related to their approach for a technical solution as it relates to the other industry solutions in their application. This information will be used in evaluating the commercial viability of the technical approach.
QUESTION:
Could this include tools in terms of tools for data collection used in conjunction with analysis software tools or is the intended scope limited to hardware tools?
ANSWER:
Existing methods used to measure in the ditch defects do not provide accurate representation of the shape of the dent. Currently, the relatively high cost of specialized tools needed to perform such measurements and the need for highly trained operators has been a deterrent towards widespread use of existing technology in the field.
Applications are sought to study, develop and demonstrate new deformation measurement tools used in future repair techniques. The pending application will need to describe how they plan to develop and demonstrate within the SBIR Phase I requirements the ability for the new tool in conjunction with analysis software tools together provide an accurate representation of the shape of the dent.
It is suggested the applicant address quantifiable performance metrics of their new tool in conjunction with the analysis software tools combined will provide low-cost, time efficient, reliable, and simple to use when describing their approach to meeting this technical gap.
QUESTION:
How finely resolved does the shape of the dent need to be?
ANSWER:
The applicant needs to include some performance metrics that define what accuracy their approach is capable of and how it relates to existing inspection technology used in the pipeline industry.
QUESTION:
How big are the dents and wrinkle bends to be measured?
ANSWER:
It is suggested the applicant specify their proposed system capabilities and how they relate to the federal/state regulations on allowable sizes of dents and wrinkle bends. The applicant needs to include some performance metrics that define what accuracy their approach is capable of and how it relates to existing inspection technology used in the pipeline industry.
QUESTION:
What's the approximate range of pipe diameters of interest for this application?
ANSWER:
Typical pipelines used to transport natural gas and hazardous materials that are regulated by DOT/PHMSA range in sizes from 6 inches up to 42 inches in diameter with a wide range of steel materials and thicknesses. Visit the DOT/PHMSA web site at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/ for additional information on pipe construction and sizes that are regulated.
QUESTION:
What's the approximate per-unit cost desired for the final product?
ANSWER:
There is no specific per-unit cost desired for the final product. It is suggested the applicant study existing inspection tools to detect dents as a baseline for establishing performance comparison metrics. Anticipated results of recommended applicants will include a low-cost, time efficient, simple to use, and reliable tool with validated and established performance.
QUESTION:
The solicitation specifically mentions dents as the major failure mode of the pipeline. Are you interested in other important failure modes such as corrosion or cracks?
ANSWER:
The primary focus of this solicitation topic is on dents. The applicant may decide to develop a tool that can also be marketed to the industry in the detection of other important failure modes.
QUESTION:
Is the inspection to be performed when the pipeline is not in operation – such as the time of installation and commissioning of the pipeline or during repair and maintenance activities? Or is it to be performed even when the pipeline is in operation?
ANSWER:
The inspection is from the outside of the pipe and makes not a difference if the pipeline is in operation or not.
QUESTION:
Is the inspection for external or internal surfaces of the pipe?
ANSWER:
External
QUESTION:
Any minimum and maximum specs for the dent?
ANSWER:
It is suggested the applicant specify their proposed system capabilities and how they relate to the federal/state regulations on allowable sizes of dents.
QUESTION:
Is the new inspection tool/method expected to be a manual tool for characterizing the dents – replacing pit gauges for example or – is it an automated system to be implemented with other inspection instrumentation such as UltraScanCD (Pigs)?
ANSWER:
The tool could be manual or automated depending on the applicants approach to filling the technical gap described in the topic.
QUESTION:
What is the measurement resolution sought, in X (along the pipe length), Y (across) and Z (depth)?
ANSWER:
The applicant needs to specify in their application the performance limitations parameters of their technical solution.
QUESTION:
What are the expected pipe positions, i.e. vertical, horizontal?
ANSWER:
There is no specific orientation of the dent location preferred.
QUESTION:
Are there any constraints/goals on the time for the measurement to complete?
ANSWER:
Applicant is recommended to quantify the cost related to their approach for a technical solution as it relates to the other industry solutions in their application. Applicant is also recommended to quantify the time to complete the inspection (seconds/minutes per dent or feature) and time necessary to analyze the data collected. (Hours, days, weeks) This information will be used in evaluating the commercial viability of the technical approach.
QUESTION:
What is the preferred measurement data output/presentation?
ANSWER:
The easiest output may be a go/no-go indicator that interrogates the dent based upon local, state or federal risk assessment regulations on acceptable dents.
QUESTION:
Are the pipes to be inspected made of magnetic materials?
ANSWER:
Various range of steel pipes (X-42 thru X-100 materials) as regulated by Pipeline Safety Regulations 49 CFR Parts 190-195.
QUESTION:
What are environmental operating conditions requirements for the measurement system?
ANSWER:
Since this tool can be potentially used anywhere in North America it would be expected that once commercialized it would withstand a wide range of harsh environments. However, the SBIR Phase I award is only focused validation in a laboratory environment of a concept and an applicant is not expected to have a commercially viable product upon completion of phase I award.
QUESTION:
What is the target system cost, if any?
ANSWER:
There is no specific per-unit cost desired for the final product. It is suggested the applicant study existing inspection tools to detect dents as a baseline for establishing performance comparison metrics. Anticipated results of recommended applicants will include a low-cost, time efficient, simple to use, and reliable tool with validated and established performance.
QUESTION:
What is the range of the diameters of the pipes to be inspected?
ANSWER:
Typical pipelines used to transport natural gas and hazardous materials that are regulated by DOT/PHMSA range in sizes from 6 inches up to 42 inches in diameter with a wide range of steel materials and thicknesses. Visit the DOT/PHMSA web site at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/ for additional information on pipe construction and sizes that are regulated.
QUESTION:
What is a range of pipe defect sizes (width, length, depth) that are to be measured?
ANSWER:
It is suggested the applicant specify their proposed system capabilities and how they relate to the federal/state regulations on allowable sizes of dents. The applicant needs to include some performance metrics that define what accuracy their approach is capable of and how it relates to existing inspection technology used in the pipeline industry.
QUESTION:
What is the measurement resolution sought, in X (along the pipe length), Y (across) and Z (depth)?
ANSWER:
The applicant needs to specify in their application the performance limitations parameters of their technical solution.
QUESTION:
What are the expected pipe positions, i.e. vertical, horizontal?
ANSWER:
There is no specific orientation of the dent location preferred.
QUESTION:
Are there any constraints/goals on the time for the measurement to complete?
ANSWER:
Applicant is recommended to quantify the cost related to their approach for a technical solution as it relates to the other industry solutions in their application. Applicant is also recommended to quantify the time to complete the inspection (seconds/minutes per dent or feature) and the time necessary to analysis the data collected. (Hours, days, weeks) This information will be used in evaluating the commercial viability of the technical approach.
QUESTION:
What is the preferred measurement data output/presentation?
ANSWER:
The easiest output may be a go/no-go indicator that interrogates the dent based upon local, state or federal risk assessment regulations on acceptable dents.
QUESTION:
Are the pipes to be inspected made of magnetic materials?
ANSWER:
Various range of steel pipes (X-42 thru X-100 materials) as regulated by Pipeline Safety Regulations 49 CFR Parts 190-195.
QUESTION:
What are environmental operating conditions requirements for the measurement system?
ANSWER:
Since this tool can be potentially used anywhere in North America it would be expected that once commercialized it would withstand a wide range of harsh environments. However, the SBIR Phase I award is only focused validation in a laboratory environment of a concept and an applicant is not expected to have a commercially viable product upon completion of a phase I award.
QUESTION:
What is the target system cost, if any?
ANSWER:
There is no specific per-unit cost desired for the final product. It is suggested the applicant study existing inspection tools to detect dents as a baseline for establishing performance comparison metrics. Anticipated results of recommended applicants will include a low-cost, time efficient, simple to use, and reliable tool with validated and established performance.
QUESTION:
Can specific examples of dents and wrinkles, in real pipe, the the DOT is interested in assessing and characterizing be made available to us should we be awarded a contract? If so, how would we account for this material?
ANSWER:
We will work with selected applicants to identify damaged pipe. However, the cost associated with procuring the samples and transporting them to the applicants facilities are the responsibility of the applicant.
091-PH2 Hazardous Materials:
- In-service Testing of Composite Cylinders
- Nanotechnology Application in Hazmat Transportation
QUESTION:
Would it be possible to give more specific on the requirements to be addressed in response to the topic in nanotechnology? The original topic is very broad and it makes it difficult to understand that kind of issues must be addressed in the proposal. There appears to be two separate thrusts: - packaging aspects of nano-materials (nano-particles) and – use of nanotechnology in DOT. Are they separate or should they both be presented in a proposal?
ANSWER:
The topic is purposefully broad. There are two different and distinct issues as this person addresses. We are interested in proposals in both areas, but a proposal that only looked at one of the two areas would be looked at in the same manner as one that addressed both. This is really a matter of preference for the person(s) potentially submitting the proposal.
QUESTION:
Could you give me more information what kind of nanomaterials must be considered in a proposal dealing with packaging and transportation of nanomaterials? What kind of problems is DOT looking to solve by using nanotechnology? Are there any references that you can provide?
ANSWER:
There isn't a specific nanomaterial that must be considered. Nanomaterials offer the potential to increase the safety of packagings use to transport traditional hazardous materials (class 1-9). Any Nanomaterial that would improve the safety of the current packagings are of interest. In addition, nanomaterials are currently being utilized in the marketplace. This material in transportation poses different risks to transportation workers, emergency responders, and the public. Packagings designed for the transportation of nanomaterials is also of interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
