U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
of Transportation
U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
of Transportation
DTRT57-10-R-SBIR1
FY10.1
FY10.1
PROGRAM SOLICITATION
Small Business Innovation Research Program
Issue Date:
October 1, 2009
Closing Date:
November 16, 2009
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Office, RVA-21
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
U.S. Department of Transportation
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
55 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
Questions and Answers
10.1 - FH1 Transportation System Performance Measurement Using Existing Loop Infrastructure
QUESTION:
After reviewing the criteria set forth I am curious to know after doing some research that there have been multiple studies that have performed the same proof of concept as the solicitation in the past and would seem to meet this criteria. These studies are even eluded to in the solicitation and seem to be centered around the PATH project with Cal-trans and a few private firms. My question is, is this a continuation of these projects or is this solicitation to "reboot" this effort or otherwise?ANSWER:
This is an excellent question. The questioner is correct that this is an effort to build upon previous research that has been done. Thus, it is to "reboot" or "kickstart" research in this topic area to try to push it from research to practice. However, it is explicitly not an effort to reboot any particular research project. Most but not all of the research has been related to state and federal research programs at a diverse range of states and firms. California, Indiana, Ohio, and Washington have participated.
We say "The loop signature sensor hardware may be a device previously developed by the SBIR proposer or one of its partners or may be developed or developed further under this project." This acknowledges that much research has been done in this area. This project is not an effort to build on any particular research project but rather on all of them collectively. We notified the National Electrical Manufacturer's Association (NEMA) and the TRB Signal Systems Committee of the announcement and requested that they pass on the news of the announcement and the solicitation it was embedded in. This was because we are interested in high quality competitive proposals for the topics and wished to spread the word as widely as possible.
If you have not previously developed such a device but can make the case that a device you have developed can be transformed into a device meeting the goals of the solicitation then we would be interested in evaluating your proposal. (You might mentally insert the phrase - or could develop with the technology base of your team into the previous sentence).
10.1 - FH2 Expert System Traffic Signal Analysis Tool
QUESTION:
- Objective 1 calls out a "low-cost wireless networked sensor group". Is there any specific innovation here or would we be allowed to partner with an organization that already produces sensors and use their existing technology if the cost is sufficiently low?
- Similarly, objective 2 calls out for a data interface tool. Can we partner with organizations that already supply such technology or is part of the solicitation request to look at novel techniques for performing the data fusion and data pre-processing tasks?
- Finally, for objective 3 can we propose an analysis tool that combines knowledge-based expert systems with other learning theories, for example multi-agent learning, neural networks, etc.? I would like to pursue a hybrid approach with an emphasis on knowledge-based systems but will focus exclusively on an expert system if that is the nature of the solicitation.ANSWER:
Using COTS sensors is OK. The concept is to get better information for the analysis. The current sensor system for intersection signal timing is not sufficient to support the system-wide analysis which needs real-time, comprehensive data. Also the cost is an important issue - high cost would prohibit the deployment of new systems.
It is up to the PI to select the options. Using existing technology is OK.
Bidders have to state the reasons to use hybrid approach. An experiment of using Expert System only and the hybrid system may be conducted in the project to compare the effectiveness of each method. Proposing a hybrid system is OK.QUESTION:
In Task V, it says to apply the Expert System with a simulated signal system. Is there a preferred simulator for the project or is that up to the discretion of the proposer?ANSWER:
Proposer can select the simulation methods.QUESTION:
I want to confirm that the goal of the expert system is to analyze the overall performance of the signal network and not just analyze the performance of individual signals within the network. Is this correct?ANSWER:
This system will have the capacity of analysis not only the overall performance at the network level, but also the individual level to find the major problems of certain signals which may impact the system performance and need to be addressed to improve the system performance.
10.1 - FH3 Simulating Signal Phase and Timing with an Intersection Collision Avoidance Traffic Model
QUESTION:
What is the current FHWA support and plan for further developing and supporting the TEXAS model. As the principal developer of the tool is now retired, is the FHWA seeking to have another firm take over support and development of this tool as a secondary outcome of this project?ANSWER:
We would like to encourage. the traffic research and practice community to utilize this tool and for small business firms to make a profit out of providing services and support with it.QUESTION:
The solicitation suggests that "...it would be helpful if you provide in your proposal a working example to demonstrate your ability to work with Java and user interfaces..." - yet SBIR proposals are limited to a simple 25-page paper submissions. How can we deliver some example DSRC message software implemented in TEAS to you for your review? Would providing a download-able link by URL be a suitable means? Do you wish to see supporting users manuals and additional collateral materials pertaining to the project that have been developed by this means as well?ANSWER:
The best method would be to send a CD or DVD with a complete working demo separately to VOLPE. If possible the software should be able to run from the CD without installation. If your software runs under Linux, you might consider installing the software on a VMware virtual disk that could be run without windows installation issues as the USDOT now operates in a Common Operating Environment (COE) which makes it very time consuming and difficult for engineers to get permission to install engineering software.QUESTION:
Does the FHWA have any particular expectations as to the model to be used in the TEXAS simulator to represent propagation of the DSRC messages themselves? Traditional RF models (such as those built using NS2) of fading and propagation path loss may prove to be too detailed for the current need. It may prove necessary to use a simple model of probabilistic message delivery over distance in the simulator. Does the FHWA have any requirements in this regard?ANSWER:
The short answer is no. While the goal is to provide an environment to test the utility of the messages and to demonstrate their use, the use of a propagation model that macroscopically represents the real world environment (such as multipath nulls) would aid in evaluating the utility of the application. To that end, we would leave it up to the presenter to propose what they feel is the best approach and to justify it in their technical proposal.QUESTION:
The IEEE 1609 committee continues to debate the best channelization plan to be used by DSRC and by vehicles using the SAE DSRC safety messages (the SAE DSRC message set is neutral on this point). There are presently (as of the IEEE meeting of Oct 20) at least three alternative approaches to channel switching actively under debate. The outcome of this affects the RF model to be used, effectively making some units "blind" to safety transmissions during a period of time which must be modeled. Does the FHWA have any requirements or direction on this topic to provide?ANSWER:
While some details on the chennelization are still being solidified, there will be a high availability, low latency channel available for safety messages. Without such a channel, DSRC value drops significantly. It is expected that SPAT and GID will use this channel With that as background, we would leave this up to the offeror to propose how to explore. You will have to propose how and whether to balance probalistic simulation with detailed RF simulation.QUESTION:
The solicitation states: "...enable running of vendor PC-based emulators of real traffic signal controllers as well as SPAT enhanced hardware in loop simulation..." which suggests that a CID and industry standard signal controllers (NTCIP, NEMA et al) are to be used in the traditional hardware-in-the-loop system. Is this meant to preclude proposing alternative solutions, such as an external software-in-the-loop approach that may be more tenable to modeling experimental reactions in the signal controller to vehicle behavior in the uncertainty gaps?ANSWER:
The controller in the loop (CID) / hardware in the loop (HIL) approach is not meant to preclude also doing a software in the loop (SIL) approach. At some point, possibly in phase II, we would want the hardware in the loop approach utilized as the systems will have to work with real world traffic signal controllers. However, we do expect you to propose and justify what you feel is the best overall approach to the topic. Good technical writing and clear logic is the key.
10.1 - FR1 Flangeway Gap Material or Device
QUESTION:
What specific limitations of the currently available products and designs inspired the current solicitation by the Small Business Innovation Research Program? What specific improvements, in comparison to currently available flangeway gap products, would an awardee under this solicitation be expected to achieve?ANSWER:
The flangeway gap device or product must be more durable and cost effective than the products that are currently available. Cost effectiveness will be judged over the total life cycle of the device or product and include the cost of installation, maintenance and removal.
10.1 - FR2 Low Cost Detection of Vehicle or Person in Grade Crossing
QUESTION:
Can DOT provide details on the Life Cycle cost of a loop detector at a grade crossing so we have something to compare our solution to?ANSWER:
The FRA topic author has provided the following response to the DOT SBIR Program Office and is as follows: I do not know the life cycle costs of loop detectors. It was my hope that the proposal(s) would compare the of the proposed solution to the loop detector solution over the same period of time. The offerors could probably get the information from a state DOT or loop detector contractor. There could be a considerable cost savings of life of a video based system over loop detectors, if for example, the loop detectors need to be replaced every 5 years when the roadway is repaved but the video based system needs to be replaced every 15 years.QUESTION:
It appears that a loop detector will not work for detecting a person. Is there a preferred implementation for the detection of persons and which criteria will be used to evaluate its performance?ANSWER:
There are a number of technologies that could be used to detect a person in a grade crossing, including radar, infrared, and video. The system will be evaluated on how well it detects persons of various sizes (child and adult), in various positions (sitting, laying, walking and standing) and in all whether and lighting conditions. The system should have a nearly perfect detection rate and a very low false positive rate (indicating a person is in the crossing when there isn't a person there). The performance of the system and the cost will be compared to that of the current loop detection systems.
10.1 - FR3 Constant Warning Time Grade Crossing Activation System
QUESTION:
Is a prototype and testing desired as part of a phase I effort or would the development of system architecture and algorithms be more appropriate for phase I with building and testing a functioning prototype being a phase II activity?ANSWER:
The phase I effort should consist of design, development of the system architecture and algorithms, development of a test plan and could include some lab testing. Prototype testing on a railroad would be conducted in Phase II.QUESTION:
Is a specific railroad test bed to be used for any testing, or is it incumbent upon the proposing firm to establish what test facility will be used?ANSWER:
FRA owns the Transportation Technology Center (TTC) which is a 52 square mile research, development, and test center in Peublo, CO. It is operated by a company by a similar name - Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI). The offerer may use any railroad or may use TTC and TTCI for testing. The cost of the railroad or TTCI should be included in future (phase II) planning. You can find more information about TTCI at http://www.ttci.aar.com/.QUESTION:
Is any equipment, system, or infrastructure available by the FRA (or another source) for testing, such as a train equipped with a differential global positioning system receiver or a track-side wireless infrastructure?ANSWER:
FRA, in cooperation with other agencies, developed the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System. This system provides coverage over about 96 percent of the continuous 48 states, all of Puerto Rico, all of Hawaii and the Southern coast of Alaska. Receivers can be purchased commercially. Receivers that can receive and process the NDGPS signals would by referred to as "Beacon," "U.S. Coast Guard" or "RTCM-104" compatible. The NDGPS service is an expansion of the Coast Guard's Maritime DGPS service. The Coast Guard operates the combined Maritime DGPS and NDGPS as one system. You can find more information about NDGPS on the Coast Guard's Navigation Center website at http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/. TTCI has locomotives that could be equipped with NDGPS receivers. There is NDGPS coverage in Pueblo. In fact, there should be a new High Accuracy NDGPS (HA-NDGPS) signal available in the Pueblo area by late 2010. TTCI is under contract with FRA to test this new HA-NDGPS signal.
10.1 - FR4 Advanced Rail Yard Inspection Vehicle
QUESTION:
I would like to better understand the requirement. Specifically what is the existing "inspection vehicle" and "inspection procedures"? Based on the short summary, is it reasonable interpretation that the underlying desired capability is to know the precise location of the employee in the yard and to implement a yard control system that assures no vehicle motion when an employee would be in harm's way?ANSWER:
There is no specific regulation on when and how inspections are conducted. Inspections are traditionally performed manually on safety appliances in train yard classification terminals and during pick up and drop off line of road service. The goal is to enhance overall safety by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of train inspections. An advanced inspection vehicle is desired and may be remotely operated by a user or operated independently.
10.1 - FR6 Non-Contact Track Gage Measurement Device
-
QUESTION:
In your topic you mentioned, "The current technologies (contact, optical, or eddy current) will not be considered". I wonder weather the "laser Fringe Projection" is considered as your existing optical technologies or not?ANSWER:
The most popular system currently being used is using laser and camera to measure track gage. If the lens get dirty the system will not work properly and also if the snow or mud is high on the track again, it is difficult to measure gage. (Any system that is using laser and camera is similar to what we currently have.) -
QUESTION:
In the solicitation is mentions that "current technologies (contact, optical, or eddy current) will not be considered" [for measurement of the rail gage]. What form of optical measurement is currently used (and therefore not allowed?). The method that we would propose might consist of using lasers. Our company has developed several versions of a system which reflects a laser beam off of a surface in order to measure information about surface shape/position/flaws etc.ANSWER:
Currently we are using Lasers with cameras. The laser shines on the rail and the cameras read the image and process it to calculate gage at the gage point. Snow, rain, mud, grease, and high ballast or other obstructions reduce the functionality of the current system.
10.1 - FT1 Safer, Greener, User-Friendly Bus and Rail Transit
-
QUESTION:
The problem precipitating this query is that Topic 10.2, FT1 has the briefest definition of all the topics, being only two sentences:
"Economical and durable technologies and devices for improving safety for riders and transit agency employees, reducing noise and energy consumption, or improving the rider experience. The innovations must be adaptable to existing bus and rail transit vehicles and systems."
The above research touches only on the two words highlighted in bold and the proposed solution would be applicable primarily to rail systems to the exclusion of buses because of containment and gimballing costs. Is the intent of the solicitation a focus primarily on mechanical and ergonomic issues? Would this type of research be oblique to the real intent of topic 10.2, FT1? It sounds like the desire is for research that can be used for both rail and bus transportation?ANSWER:
We are seeking SBIR proposals that would apply to bus OR rail transit.
10.1 - NH1 Driver Behaviour and Crash Avoidance Monitoring System for Vehicles
QUESTION:
I was wondering if there is interest in physiological or neurological monitoring of the driver state for the proposed monitoring system?ANSWER:
While potentially useful, the concept and examples described in the email add complexity (cameras and EEG measurement) that are likely beyond the scope of the solicitation.QUESTION:
Does the system need to consider only driver behavior or state and not require any integration or measurement of a vehicle system or subsystem?ANSWER:
The solicitation does not require any integration with existing vehicle measurements or systems. This also adds complexity and potential for unwanted interference with existing safety systems.QUESTION:
I assume that it is permissible for demonstrations to be planned at the bidders facility or locale?ANSWER:
A demonstration in the Washington, DC area near the USDOT Headquarters building (or another location such as the Federal Highway Administration's Turner-Fairbank Research Center in McLean, VA) would be preferred. Having the demonstrations in the Washington, DC area will allow subject matter experts from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and other modal agencies to observe the demonstration and speak directly with the vendor's representatives. NHTSA personnel can assist the vendor in identifying a suitable location for a demonstration in the Washington, DC area.QUESTION:
Please point us to a list of authors/experts who have authored studies in this area?ANSWER:
I recommend that they do some internet searching in the areas they mentioned. There appear to be a number of companies in this area that they can contact. I don't believe there are many authored papers, but they could check the Society of Automotive Engineers website, www.sae.org.QUESTION:
I was hoping, based on your response to my previous email, you might be able to provide some clarification regarding the scope of the solicitation. My initial question was whether there is interest in neuro or physiological monitoring of driver state. Your response indicated that the equipment necessary might add complexity beyond the scope of the solicitation. Also, there seems to be a goal to avoid integration with existing vehicle systems to avoid interference with existing safety systems.
My initial reaction to this is wondering, in an effort to measure driver behavior or driver state, what IS within the scope of this solicitation? Incidents on the road are often caused by behavior that leads to distraction or states that lead to driver fatigue. This information can be measured but based on the response provided, seem to be outside the scope of the call.
I am not suggesting at this point a particular topic. I am not asking for feedback on whether real time distraction or fatigue measurement/monitoring is a quality topic. Rather I am just looking for some clarification on the scope of monitoring systems for this particular solicitation.ANSWER:
Bullet 5 offers some idea of scope regarding an embedded system concept we are contemplating. We believe that algorithms may be developed that use GPS and accelerometer data to determine behavioral attributes. A proposal may offer additional technology, but we do not envision these systems will have neuro or physiological monitoring.
10.1 - NH2 Radio Frequency Identification Licensing System for Motor Vehicles
-
QUESTION:
Please let the topic author for NH2 that a solution for that topic already 99% exists. See www.e-plate.com. Of course e-plate uses active RFID tags, while the topic asks for passive RFID tags. So the technical question is: Can active tags be used or are passive tags a must have requirement?ANSWER:
Yes, we are fully aware that certain European nations are utilizing this technology for traffic enforcement and roadway safety. In response to your technical question; The use of active RFID tags can be can be included in a company's proposal if the tags are self-powered and do not draw any power from the vehicle's battery. Any drain on a motorcycle's battery for an active RFID tag would be considered unfavorable as it would receive strong push-back from the motorcycling community in the United States. If an active RFID tag is included in a proposal, the company may wish to elaborate on the advantages/disadvantages associated with the two types of tags in addition to the power requirements/source for the active RFID tag. QUESTION:
Can active tags be used or are passive tags a must have requirement?ANSWER:
The use of RFID tags can be included in a company's proposal if the tags are self-powered and do not draw any power from the vehicle's battery. Any drain on a motorcycle's battery for an active RFID tag would be considered unfavorable as it would receive strong push-back from the motorcycling community in the United States. If an active RFID tag is included in a proposal, the company may wish to elaborate on the advantages/disadvantages associated with the two types of tags in addition to the power requirement/source for the active RFID tag.QUESTION:
"Would you consider embedding the RFID in something other than a license plate, for example an inspection sticker? I think this would allow for cheaper manufacturing and could also be started on a number of vehicles very quickly. The risk of course is that the stickers would be easier to remove."ANSWER:
The solicitation specifies that the RFID tag be embedded in a motor vehicle's license plate for several reasons:- All States in the United States do not require motor vehicles to be inspected for use on public roadways. Placement of the RFID tag near or with a State inspection sticker would not be feasible for implementation by all States. The purpose of this solicitation is to seek a tool to assist ALL States in the enforcement of safety and traffic laws.
- All States in the United States require motor vehicles to be registered with the jurisdictional driver licensing agency, which leads to the mounting of a license plate on all registered vehicle. The vehicle's license plate is considered property of the State and not property of the individual.
- In the event evidence of tampering or disabling of the RFID tag by an individual is discovered and/or proven, the State can take appropriate action(s) in accordance with its laws to protect State property.
- Vendors may propose other locations in or on a motor vehicle and every proposal will be given fair and appropriate consideration by the evaluation team; however, the language in the solicitation does specify embedding the RFID tag in a motor vehicle's license plate and this is the preferred location for the RFID tag. If a vendor wishes to propose alternate locations for the placement of the RFID tag in or on a motor vehicle (including a motorcycle), that vendor is strongly encouraged to provide detailed justification for alternate locations.
QUESTION:
"In the solicitation it says to 'identify the direction/location of the RFID tag with respect to the RFID reader ...'. Does this mean that part of the research is to not only detect the vehicles by reading the tag but also to specify the precise location of the tag with respect to the reader?"ANSWER:
Language to identify the direction and/or location of the RFID tag with respect to the location of the RFID reader was included in the solicitation for the development of a tool that can better assist law enforcement officers in the quick identification of vehicles of interest. When a law enforcement officer receives notification that a vehicle of interest is within range of the RFID Reader mounted in his/her patrol vehicle, the officer should be able to conduct a quick visual scan in a specific direction to identify the vehicle of interest before it exits the range of the RFID reader versus having the law enforcement officer perform a 360 degree visual scan of the 60' or greater perimeter surrounding the patrol vehicle. Considering this tool may be utilized while a law enforcement officer is operating a patrol vehicle in traffic, a direction and/or location of the RFID tag from the RFID reader will enable the law enforcement officer to quickly identify the vehicle of interest while safely operating his/her patrol vehicle.QUESTION:
"Other methods and places are not explicitly banned within the solicitation topic. For instance, one potential method/location is the area on the inside of the windshield where State inspection sticker is commonly attached."
"When dealing with the technical issue of embedding the tag within the license plate, the topic specification does not seem to go into technical details as to why, or even if, this particular method is preferred."
"Therefore, a question arose as to whether embedding the tag within the license plate is viewed as a technical requirement. If it is a requirement, what is its underlying technical merit? Will it be within the spirit of the topic specification for us to include in our proposal an optional different tag placement, which achieves the same or greater merit?ANSWER:
The solicitation specifies that the RFID tag be embedded in a motor vehicle's license plate for several reasons:- All States in the United States do not require motor vehicles to be inspected for use on public roadways. Placement of the RFID tag near or with a State inspection sticker would not be feasible for implementation by all States. The purpose of this solicitation is to seek a tool to assist ALL States in the enforcement of safety and traffic laws.
- All States in the United States require motor vehicles to be registered with the jurisdictional driver licensing agency, which leads to the mounting of a license plate on all registered vehicle. The vehicle's license plate is considered property of the State and not property of the individual.
- In the event evidence of tampering or disabling of the RFID tag by an individual is discovered and/or proven, the State can take appropriate action(s) in accordance with its laws to protect State property.
- Vendors may propose other locations in or on a motor vehicle and every proposal will be given fair and appropriate consideration by the evaluation team; however, the language in the solicitation does specify embedding the RFID tag in a motor vehicle's license plate and this is the preferred location for the RFID tag. If a vendor wishes to propose alternate locations for the placement of the RFID tag in or on a motor vehicle (including a motorcycle), that vendor is strongly encouraged to provide detailed justification for alternate locations.
QUESTION:
"With the tag embedded within the license plate, would it be acceptable if the thickness of the license plate was increased? Note: the mounting method or the mounting hardware would not need to change."ANSWER:
With respect to embedding an RFID tag in a motor vehicle license plate, a reasonable increase in the thickness of the license plate is acceptable if the mounting method or mounting hardware does not change from current practice. This will enable individual owners of motor vehicles to continue the practice of mounting a license plate on their own vehicle(s) without requiring special tools or service centers.QUESTION:
"Is it intended that the RFID tag will be embedded in the rear license plate, front license plate, or both?"ANSWER:
Individual State jurisdictions will make the determination as to whether an RFID-enable vehicle license plate will be place on the front of the vehicle, the rear of the vehicle, or both. However, some vehicles (e.g., motorcycles) only have rear license plates. This project is intended to provide State jurisdictions with the capability of utilizing RFID-enabled license plates as they deem appropriate.QUESTION:
"Will the patrol car be moving on the highway in close proximity to the vehicle being interrogated?"ANSWER:
We anticipate scenarios where a patrol vehicle is in motion and interrogating vehicle license plates within range of the RFID reader. The news article, specifically the video, at http://www.king5.com/news/local/60835672.html would be a scenario where a patrol vehicle in motion could be useful in identifying the motor vehicles involved in traffic offenses.QUESTION:
"Will the patrol car be stationary along side the road and interrogate vehicles as they pass by the patrol car. If this is the scenario will the patrol car be parallel or perpendicular to the road?"ANSWER:
We anticipate scenarios where a patrol vehicle is parked near lanes of travel and interrogating vehicle license plates as they come within range of the RFID reader. The position of the patrol vehicle with respect to lane(s) of travel will vary, being either parallel or perpendicular, depending upon safe locations that are available along the side of the roadway to position the vehicle and/or jurisdictional policy (if there are any) with respect to the positioning of patrol vehicle near lanes of travel. The news article, specifically the video, at http://www.king5.com/news/local/60835672.html provides a scenario where a patrol vehicle (or vehicles) parked near the lanes of travel could be useful in identifying the vehicles involved in traffic offenses.QUESTION:
What is the maximum distance between the patrol car and vehicle being interrogated?ANSWER:
The range for accurate identification by the RFID reader of the RFID tag specified in the SBIR solicitation is 0 (zero) feet to 30 (thirty) feet. This is the minimum range that will be accepted for this project; however, there is no maximum range specified in the solicitation. Vendors are certainly welcome to propose an RFID reader and tag combination where the range for accurate identification exceeds the 30 (thirty) foot minimum specified in the solicitation.
Furthermore, after the SBIR solicitation was announced, a question was received concerning the inclusion of active versus passive RFID tags in a proposal. The solicitation specified passive RFID tags; however, we have learned that the range for accurate identification can vary depending on whether an active or passive RFID tag is utilized. Should a company have a concern about the range associated with passive RFID tags, companies may propose the use of active RFID tags if they are self-powered and do not draw any power from the vehicle's battery. If active RFID tags are included in the proposal, the company may wish to elaborate on the advantages/disadvantages associated with the two types of tags in addition to the power requirement/source for an active RFID tag.QUESTION:
"Could you also clarify or give more details on the system to which the awardee will need to interface. It is our understanding that the following interface scenario is expected:- A law enforcement officer will see the motorcycle in which to follow.
- As the law enforcement officer trails the vehicle, he/she will read the tag in the license plate.
- At this point, there is no information to go along with this number, it is just a unique identifier.
- The agent will then stop his/her car, and perhaps sync to the database that stores all secure information about that tag unique identifier, and from a laptop or car-mounted computer he/she will access a database to correlate this unique identifier to all important information he will need about the licensee."
ANSWER:
Data management and data querying capabilities will vary greatly between jurisdictions, which is what we've seen with License Plate Reader systems currently in use by law enforcement agencies. A few jurisdictions may elect to pursue "real time" interfacing between law enforcement and driver license agency databases for the identification of motor vehicles. However, the use of real time interfacing will result in a large number of data transactions and likely require frequent maintenance and supervision. We anticipate that most jurisdictions will elect to pursue an option of having law enforcement agencies download a vehicle registration and operator licensing database from the driver licensing agency, which can then be stored and queried on patrol vehicle computer systems. The data contained on a patrol vehicle computer system can be updated or refreshed on a daily basis, either prior to the start of a shift or following the end of a shift. Jurisdictions may also create and maintain lists for vehicles of interest that automatically alert law enforcement officers when the RFID reader identifies a stolen vehicle, expired tag, etc.QUESTION:
I assume that it is permissible for demonstrations to be planned at the bidders facility or locale?ANSWER:
A demonstration in the Washington, DC area near the USDOT Headquarters building (or another location such as the Federal Highway Administration's Turner-Fairbank Research Center in McLean, VA) would be preferred. Having the demonstrations in the Washington, DC area will allow subject matter experts from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and other modal agencies to observe the demonstration and speak directly with the vendor's representatives. NHTSA personnel can assist the vendor in identifying a suitable location for a demonstration in the Washington, DC area.
10.1 - PH1 In-service Testing of Composite Cylinders
QUESTION:
What type of cylinder are you seeking testing for?
Any specifics you can provide would be helpful.ANSWER:
All fully wrapped carbon composite cylinders which includes load-sharing and non-load sharing.QUESTION:
In regards to topic 10.1 PH1, is there a preferred methodology as to which Phase 1 should be carried out?ANSWER:
No, provided the methodology has been proven to meet our objectives (practical, repeatable and adequately accurate for periodic inspection and testing).QUESTION:
Can you give approximate size of these composite cylinders; diameter and length?ANSWER:
Most commonly used, 50-90 liters, 3-5" diameter, 20-60" length.QUESTION:
What are the applications areas for these composite cylinders that DOT are interested in?ANSWER:
We are interested in the in-service testing of the cylinders which are regulated by our agency, PHMSA, as stated within the solicitation. The cylinders are used in SCBA, SCUBA and in conjunction with other industrial gases. Usually the gases are non-toxic, but other gases may be authorized.QUESTION:
What gases are stored in these cylinders?ANSWER:
The cylinders are used in SCBA, SCUBA and in conjunction with other industrial gases. Usually the gases are non-toxic, but other gases may be authorized.QUESTION:
Are the composite cylinders made from graphite reinforced composites or glass reinforced composites?ANSWER:
Yes, but we clearly defined the composite cylinder design for this project.QUESTION:
What is the non-load sharing liner referenced in the solicitation? Is this metallic or plastic material?ANSWER:
Non-load sharing is usually referred to either no liner or plastic liner.QUESTION:
What NDE method(s) are used today to support the special permits that the PHMSA issues? Are these methods capable of providing any level of useful information to make consistent decisions?ANSWER:
We have not approved an NDE method for re-qualification of composite cylinders. However there exist a few national standards in ASTM and ASME that may be reviewed. We have been involved in the development of the ASTM standard, but at the end, we were not convinced with the repeatability and accuracy of the ASTM standard. Therefore we are looking for alternative ideas.QUESTION:
What are the composite cylinders in question used for - specifically what are the storage materials and pressures?ANSWER:
We are interested in the in-service testing of the cylinders which are regulated by our agency, PHMSA, as stated within the solicitation. The cylinders are used in SCBA, SCUBA and in conjunction with other industrial gases. Usually the gases are non-toxic, but other gases may be authorized.QUESTION:
Are there other people within this industry we should be talking to?ANSWER:
Some of the reliable sources include NASA, all US composite cylinder manufacturers such as SCI, Luxfer, Lincoln, and Carlton Technology, Digital Waves, and Physical Acoustic.QUESTION:
Are these composites filled with glass fibers, or are they graphite fiber reinforced?ANSWER:
Either glass or carbon can be used in these cylinders. Please refer to the DOT CFFC and ISO 11119 standards for additional information.QUESTION:
Are there any reports that discuss the fiber arrangement of these pipelines?ANSWER:
The solicitation is referring to composite cylinders, not pipelines.QUESTION:
How many SBIR Phase 1 contracts will be awarded with this topic?ANSWER:
One contract.QUESTION:
Should we have testing and physical demonstration included in Phase 1?ANSWER:
We cannot provide guidance on how you should prepare your proposal.QUESTION:
Can the DOT provide test articles and data from past testing?ANSWER:
Yes.QUESTION:
Were you looking for embedded sensors or a portable instrument?ANSWER:
Either, provided the methodology has been proven to meet our objectives (practical, repeatable and adequately accurate for periodic inspection and testing).QUESTION:
If an instrument, was a scanning system preferred or acceptable?ANSWER:
A scanning system would be acceptable provided it met all the other stated objectives.QUESTION:
Is entire cylinder to be inspected or just spot areas?ANSWER:
At least 100% of the side wall of each cylinder must be inspected via NDE during re-qualification.QUESTION:
What are the dimensions and thicknesses of the cylinders?ANSWER:
Please refer to the DOT CFFC and ISO 11119 standards for additional information.QUESTION:
Is there access to the inside of the cylinder?ANSWER:
Not unless you remove the cylinder valve and have an instrument which fits through the cylinder threaded neck.QUESTION:
What are the sizes of the defects? Are they only fiber breaks or are voids and delaminations also an issue?ANSWER:
Please have them review CGA pamphlet C-6.2 pamphlet C-6.2. Also, please realize that detection of defects (e.g. fiber breakage, internal crack) that are not visible to the eye is part of this R&D project.QUESTION:
Is the user assumed to be a trained nondestructive testing technician or not?ANSWER:
We make no assumptions. Everything depends on the proposed NDE method and how automated the system is.QUESTION:
Is the speed of the inspection an issue? If so, any guidelines?ANSWER:
Of course speed is important. This is part of our objective to have a "practical NDE System."