Technical questions pertaining to the FY14.1 U.S. DOT SBIR solicitation research topics must be submitted to the U.S. DOT SBIR Program Office via email at dotsbir@dot.gov.

Please note that technical questions will be accepted through March 28, 2014, at 11:59 p.m. EST. Questions received after March 28, 2014, but before the solicitation close date and time may not be answered. The U.S. DOT SBIR Program Office will submit all technical questions to the research topic authors for response. Questions and answers will be posted below.

Go directly to questions and answers related to the following topics:

Federal Highway Administration

• 14.1-FH1 Development of Prestressed Concrete Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Inspection Procedures
• 14.1-FH2 Personalized Driving Data for Insurance Discounts & Public Benefits
• 14.1- FH3 Suppressing Utility Problems – Protection via Robotic Engineering to the Sub-Surface
• 14.1-FH4 STEM Education – Increasing awareness about Intelligent Transportation Systems and Connected Vehicle Technologies for High School Students
• 14.1-FH5 Visually unobtrusive traffic monitoring for National Park Service Parkways
• 14.1-FH6 Corrosion Resistant Prestressing Strand for Prestressed Concrete Bridges

Federal Railroad Administration

• 14.1-FR1 Lightweight, Portable System for Mid-Chord Offset Measurement of Railroad Rails
• 14.1-FR2 Wheel Load Cycle Tag for Rail
• 14.1-FR3 Easy Access to Freight Locomotives

Federal Highway Administration

14.1-FH1 Development of Prestressed Concrete Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Inspection Procedures

Question: What is depth range of tendons to be inspected, i.e. how much concrete is between the tendon (or duct) and the concrete surface?

This is dependent on the configuration of the member, but it could be as much as several feet (2-5 feet).

Question: What are the relevant failure modes of the tendons? Is detection of a change in radius due to water corrosion (i.e. rusting) a sufficient inspection statistic? How much change in radius (or amount of rust) is the detection goal? 

The reduction in cross section of the tendon is of interest as well as dispersive properties of the grout in the ducts or other material surrounding the tendon. The ability to measure a reduction in the cross section of 10% would be ideal.

Question: Can the inspection device have access to multiple sides of structure?

It should be assumed that the measurement device can only have access to one side of the structure. Proposals for both will be considered, but the former is preferred.

Question: Will the DOT provide representative test samples to the contractor or provide a methodology on how to construct them?

DOT will work with the contractor to determine the proper methodology to build test samples.

14.1-FH2 Personalized Driving Data for Insurance Discounts & Public Benefits

Question: Will the device need to already be on market? If we can show a working prototype in Phase One, is this possible?

There are no minimum requirements including having to have a device that is already on the market. Demonstrations of potential, such as a working prototype, are encouraged.

Question: Does the Phase I concept need to be centered on design of a telematics product? Or may the concept be around analytic technology that could use data from telematics products and/or insurance data to generate information about the individual driver?

If we are to develop technology that individual drivers and/or insurance companies could use in open source, is there a requirement that the Phase I technology development for this platform will involve a telematics company partner or an insurance company?

The Phase I concept does not need to be centered on designing a telematics product. A wide array of approaches will be considered and proposals will be evaluated on their likelihood of facilitating the end goal of creating a pay-as-you-drive insurance marketplace whereby consumers, by sharing their driving data, will in turn get back multiple competitive insurance quotes.

Question: How much of this proposal is for the hardware/software to capture vehicle data, and how much is for the creation of the data marketplace featuring key metrics for insurance?

FHWA appreciates that it is sometimes the case that specific technologies do not work with some vehicles.  This is something we accept, so long as the proposed technologies could work on or with most vehicles.  FHWA does not have specific data requirements.  Instead, we want the applicant to find and meet the data requirements, whatever they may be, of at least three insurance companies offering, or interested in offering, pay-as-you-drive insurance.  Obviously, the lower the hardware and wireless costs the better, but FHWA does not have any specific cost targets in mind.  Within its overall operating constraints, FHWA would likely conduct outreach to promote whatever product is developed, assuming successful development and that this be the desire of the applicant.

Question: Expected Phase I Outcomes” states that Phase 1 should include a detailed concept that demonstrates the viability of consumer telematics products and systems including agreement from insurance companies in terms of accepting the data to offer competitive premiums. Our question is:  What are the expected criteria for “agreement / acceptance” of insurance companies? 

Thanks for your question.  We don’t have a specific measure for demonstrating insurance company agreement.  If the application merely demonstrates that data would be collected that three companies already collect for their usage-based product, and the companies have indicated publicly or otherwise demonstrated that they would accept third-party data, that would be sufficient to meet the minimum requirement.  Given, though, that this is a competitive solicitation, exceeding this minimum requirement is encouraged.  Thus, even better would be specific information from these companies (such as non-binding letters of intention, e-mails of a similar nature, or even telephone conversations between that applicants and insurance company representatives that are documented) that they would, or likely would, accept the specific data that you would be offering.

14.1-FH3 Suppressing Utility Problems – Protection via Robotic Engineering to the Sub-Surface

Question:  What is the core focus of the topic: Is it to “robotically relocate existing overhead utilities” or “map existing underground utilities”  or both. Given the limited resources ( even including Phase II) we want to make sure we are focusing our effort in the right direction. What is the end goal for the “ phase II prototype”? In terms of a “system”, do you see this as being a hardware unit or kit, or just a better process that all stakeholders (utilities, utility locating services, drillers) follow? What is missing in the current state of the art that you want this SBIR to address?

I would say ultimately both, but the focus should be on “robotically relocate existing overhead utilities”, as current technology provides for the 3D mapping of underground utilities. 

A software/hardware system that, if not field-ready, can be demonstrated to work in a realistic environment, utilizing technology for accuracy and precision. 

Unifying all current technologies together for an effective and complete system.

Question:  Can more details be provided about the specifications (minimum target size? maximum depth ? What type of utilities? Size Weight Power Cost SWAP-C constraints etc).

The goal is to address any utility that may be found in the right-of-way.

Question:  We are assuming that a system like this will affect the Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) process. (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/history.cfm). Are you looking to fully remove the need to do things such as vacuum extraction and quality level A identification, or would that still be a part of the process?

No.

Question:  In using the term “robotic” are you looking for increasing levels of automation in sensing utilities, planning bores, controlling bores, routing cables through bores, or all of the above?

All of the above, and more.

Question:  On the sensing side: Should the solution be completely stand-alone ( sensor based) or should it have the capability to incorporate existing knowledge about the terrain (database of utilities etc)? Is an image processing algorithm desired that can extract underground utility parameters (e.g. dimension and location) from 3D images?

The system should use all tools available for accuracy and precision.

14.1-FH4 STEM Education – Increasing awareness about Intelligent Transportation Systems and Connected Vehicle Technologies for High School Students

Question:  Are there any evaluation requirements for developed lessons during phase I e.g. pre testing in the high school?

Pre-testing is acceptable and encouraged, but not necessary.

Question:  How many lessons should be developed for this phase I SBIR?

No number of lessons was included in the topic statement.  An adequate number is necessary in order to introduce and interest High School and/or Middle School students to ITS / advanced transportation technologies, which now includes Connected Vehicle research and deployments.  This infers a multiple-session lesson plan.  The responder should determine what number of sessions as well as the length of the lessons that would be required, given the topic objectives and other criteria that could include other STEM demands on educators and the Phase I award amount.

Question:  Which standards are required or preferred: K-12 core, STEM (Next Generation Science Standards – Science), both, or any other additional not specified?

The topic solicitation cites that the “lesson plans should be created according to the guidelines maintained by http://www.teachengineering.org, a NSF-funded collaborative project sponsored by the American Society for Engineering Education.”  This cite lists eight acceptable international educational standards, one of which is Next Generation Science Standards.  The solicitation does not have a preference to any of the eight, but has stated that the NSF engineering teaching guidelines should be followed.  This means that one of the eight standards should be followed.

14.1-FH5 Visually unobtrusive traffic monitoring for National Park Service Parkways

Question: In the solicitation, I found that “Use of the GWMP maintenance facility and the TFHRC site for preliminary testing of the prototype devices in Phase I and II is required.” However, we have no idea about what GWMP maintenance facility and the TFHRC site are.

1. What their structures are in terms of software, hardware, and network?
2. How we can access and utilize them?
3. If there’s any protocol to be connected to the system, what would that be?

Answers:

1. GWMP has PC’s, network server, basic software such Microsoft excel, project, google earth, Geographic information systems. TFHRC, Turner-Fairbanks Highway Research Center.
2. The IT administrator will grant network access within two weeks of the start of the award.
3. Yes, there is a protocol, we will have to request from IT administrator, when specific requirements are known.

Question: When the solicitation asks for technology with capabilities of determining type of vehicle, is that based on size, or make/model?

Size is more important. We need to be able to determine buses and cars.

Question: For example, should it be able to tell the difference between a semi and a motorcycle, or between a mustang and a civic?

No, these distinctions are not important. No commercial vehicles are allowed on parkway. Buses, cars and motorcycles are the typical type of vehicles.

Question: Is "surveillance for incident management response" asking for visual evidence of every crash, or simply the ability to determine there has been an incident between mm x and y?

The ability to determine location is important.

Question: Is the goal data collection or also data analysis? That is, should the monitoring also return number and type of vehicles observed over time?

Yes, for both.

Question: How long should the data collection device run on long-life batteries?

5-10 years

Question: Is the data collection 24/7? Including night time operations?

Yes

Question: May solar panels be used?

Yes, but they need to be small, only up to 12” x 12”

Question: What is the maximum distance from the deploy points to the regional ITS?

Nearest VDOT traffic management center is 20 miles away in Fairfax, VA.

Question: Is it required that the Phase I prototype have the final low profile configuration, or may it be improved during the Phase II effort?

NPS will be flexible with initial design. It can be improved in Phase II.

Question:  Do you want full data relay (i.e. streaming video) all the time or are summarized traffic reports (speed, volume, etc.) with periodic/on-demand full data relay acceptable?

For the majority of the time, the summarized traffic reports will be suitable; however, we would like the capability to perform periodic/on-demand full data relay.

Question:  If we utilize overhead sensors, does all the equipment (sensor head, communications, processing, and batteries) need to be mounted together, or can some of the equipment be located on the ground next to the pole/bridge pier?  In particular, the desired 5-10 yr. battery lifetime seems to imply a large and thus heavy battery bank.

For the overhead sensors. It is optimal for them to have all of the items in close proximity; however, if they need to be separated to increase the ability to conceal elements, that is ok.  It is ok to consider placing large batteries underground.

Question:  Can you define the size and weight limits for above-roadway and at-roadway sensors?

We really don’t have any preferences for the size/weight for roadway sensors. They just need to be visually unobtrusive.

Question:  If above-roadway sensors are used, does the power supply/processing equipment have to be located at sensor head (i.e., top of pole), or can they be on the ground?

For above roadway sensors, poles and structures that impact the viewshed can present difficulties with environmental compliance. We are flexible about locations of power supply equipment.

Question:  What distance is travel time computed over?  Does this require reacquiring the same vehicle over extended time periods?

The length of the Parkway is 26 miles. Yes, the same vehicle may be monitored over time.

Question:  Should each sensor perform local processing, or would you prefer full data streaming back to some central management location where data processing is performed?

Both options should be considered for the sensor to perform local processing, or full data streaming back to some central management location where data processing is then performed.

Question:  What is the minimum acceptable percent coverage?

I’m not sure about minimum coverage; I think the standard is 95 percent confidence level.

Would you prefer real-time reporting, or can the monitoring report periodically (i.e., every X minutes)? If periodically, what is the targeted update rate?

The monitoring report can be done periodically. Approximately 3-6 times per hour. The consultant can make a determination based on quantities that are significant.

Question: The solicitation indicates "The expected outcome of Phase I is the development of a prototype that can be deployed for testing on the GWMP facility."  Would the costs for building this prototype come out of the $125k budget, or is there additional room for materials expenses?

I would assume the 125K is the budget to accomplish all tasks under this project, and that includes materials cost.

Question: How many locations along the 26 miles of the GWMP would need to be monitored?  Is it OK to co-locate all the devices in one area or do they need to be spread out?

The initial/prototype device testing can be co-located on a smaller area near Turkey Run Park or Turner Fairbanks location.

Question: How much definition of the product is required in the proposal?  In other words, should Phase I include the process of determining the optimal configuration, or should the proposal already outline an envisaged design?

Outline the envisaged design.

Question: My firm has expertise in product design and has worked on projects with significant electronic and communications components, but those aspects were not done in house.  I know sub-contracting is permitted, but is there any knowledge of other companies with expertise in the electronics/communications/data processing field that have expressed interest in this SBIR topic that are looking to partner with someone with mechanical/design skills, either as a prime or as a sub?

We don’t know of any, but the products we reviewed from Sensys Networks Christopher Flores comes to mind and their products as you mention are half way there.

Question: What data communication protocol is being used currently to talk to the traffic control center?

We have no system in-place at the Park.  This project will determine the protocol to talk to the VDOT traffic System.

Question: What radar system(s) is (are) TruckSafe going to comparing against?

We currently have no radar systems to compare to.

Question: Are there any cameras active on the GWMP currently?

No.

Question: Are there any existing embedded (in-roadway) sensors – RF or acoustic – on the GWMP?

No, the only sensor we have traffic-counter-loops at a few locations.

14.1-FH6 Corrosion Resistant Prestressing Strand for Prestressed Concrete Bridges

Question:  Is there a specific diameter, or range of diameters, for the strands for 14.1-FH6 Corrosion Resistant Prestressing Strand for Prestressed Concrete Bridges?

The research would be most applicable if it could focus on Grade 270 0.5-inch diameter prestressing strand and/or Grade 270 0.6-in diameter prestressing strand.

Question:  The topic states that the prestressing strand is a “high strength 7-wire strand” but does not include the size of each wire or the overall diameter. Is there a specific size of strands and/or wires that we should work with? Is there a specific grade of high-strength steel that we should test with and compare the results to?

The research would be most applicable if it could focus on Grade 270 0.5-inch diameter prestressing strand and/or Grade 270 0.6-in diameter prestressing strand.

Question:  Does that actual feasibility research for this Phase I solicitation need to be on  full-size wire used in making .5” and .6” grade 270 prestressing strand or can the research be performed on the same type or grade but smaller wire size?

The feasibility research for the Phase I solicitation can show the feasibility using smaller or larger wires, but it also needs to demonstrate the feasibility of Grade 270 0.5-in diameter prestressing strands and Grade 270 0.6-in diameter prestressing strands.

Question:  Is this solicitation interested in a proposal “developing new corrosion resistant grout”?

No, this solicitation is focusing on alternatives to conventional high-strength 7-wire strand (Black strand).

Federal Railroad Administration

14.1-FR1 Lightweight, Portable System for Mid-Chord Offset Measurement of Railroad Rails

Question: What measurement precision is required (e.g. +- 0.25-in) in both horizontal and vertical planes?

The above question is best answered by referencing the FRA Track Safety Standards – see links below. These standards define the measurements needed. The primary use for this device will be rail profile and alignment measurements.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04404 (track classes 1 – 5)
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04405 (track classes 6 – 9)

Question: Are these measurements taken on the same rail repeatedly (e.g. annually or every 2 years)?

Full size geometry systems, typically mounted on railcars, perform the routine/periodic measurements. The hand-held device would be used for spot checking. An inspector may want to hand survey a relatively short section of track at a once-per-foot interval to validate the data from a full size system, to perform quality checks following maintenance, or to gather data when a full sized system is not available. The device may be used at regular time intervals on a track segment that cannot be tested with a full size system.

Question: For both operating company and Federal/State inspectors, are these measurements taken on random single rail sections in isolation, every section in a ¼ mile stretch, every other section, every section, etc.?

See answer to above question "Are these measurements taken on the same rail repeatedly (e.g. annually or every 2 years)?"

Question: For topic 14.1-FR1 what is the accuracy desired? .015 Inch, .03 inch?

We are looking for a system with 0.0625” (1/16”) or better precision.

Question: Does the system have to return an absolute measurement (i.e. mid chord deviation = 2.1-inch) or can it just note that the MCO value is out of spec (greater than Federal regulation)? I.E. As noted on the Technical Q&A website, with a 1/16” measurement precision, the out of spec value would be the MCO limit value +1/16 inch.

Absolute measurement is desired.

Question: Why don’t the current technology/current methods as mentioned in the following references satisfy the proposal needs?

Yazawa & Takeshita – Development of Measurement Device of Track Irregularity using Inertial MCO Method I (inertial method)
Hisa, Kanaya, Sakai, & Hamoaka – Rail and Contact Line Inspection Technology for Safe and Reliable Railway Traffic (optical method)

The technologies cited are not suitable for hand measurements/static measurements.

Question: One question is about the possible cost for such a portable system. We feel that an optical system could do the job, however it involves laser and some expensive optics components, which could cost several thousand dollars. We understand currently a string line is the main tool to measure such offset and such string line can be very inexpensive. I am wondering if there is a maximum price tag for such portable system. It will be bad that we provide an optical based system costing thousands of dollars at the end of the project should we win it, while no one is willing to buy it. Please advise.

The unit cost of the system is a consideration, but there is no maximum price determination at this time. We expect that this new system will be more expensive than the string line method.

Question: Can you provide the figure that is referenced in the solicitation?

Please disregard the reference to "figure 1" in the solicitation. Figure 1 does not exist.

Questions: 

It sounds like the Mid-Chord Offset measurement applies to a single rail, and is repeated for both left and right rails. Is this correct? Or is it a measurement of differences between the left and right rails?

Are the vertical and lateral measurements done with two separate string placements? Or from a single string placement?

1/16inch precision is also applicable in both profile and alinement axes, right? If not, what is the precision in measurement required for the alinement axis?

The answers to all these questions can be found by reading the FRA Track and Rail and Infrastructure Integrity Compliance Manuals. These manuals provide a complete description of the measurements.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04404 (track classes 1-5)

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04405 (track classes 6-9)

The sections of interest for this SBIR technology are:

213.51 - Track Classes 1-5

213.327 and 213.331 for Track Classes 6-9

Question: Regarding curved track, what is the minimum radius of curvature that must be accommodated (this is needed to determine the total distance from the track to the "string" at the mid-chord point on curved sections of track)?

Ideally the device will function on tracks with curvature up to 12 degrees (~480 ft radius), but our primary application for the longer MCO measurements is higher speed track which has significantly less curvature (4 degrees or less, >1400 foot radius). Minimum curve radius is clearly a design variable that will be evaluated along with cost, portability, and ease of use.

14.1-FR2 Wheel Load Cycle Tag for Rail

Question: How removable does the tag have to be? How often will it be required to be moved and re-adhered? How many times will this happen during its required lifetime?

It really depends on cost. If the tag is not very removable, then obviously more tags will be required so the cost of each tag should be minimal. However, if the tag is removable, then the cost could be potentially be slightly higher. The tag would not be removed/re-adhered very often; perhaps one time a year.

Question: Does the tag need to be placed on the web or can it placed at another location near the track (i.e., under the rail)?

It should be placed somewhere that is easily accessible, such as the web or base of the rail. Placing the device under the rail is probably not practical.

Question: Does the tag need to measure every wheel or can it measure every bogey or even every railcar that passes over it?

The tag should be capable of providing a rough order of magnitude number of the amount of tonnage that a rail has experienced. Therefore, measuring each load may not be necessary.

Question: Is it sufficient for each tag to have a physically unique serial number or does each tag have to have the ability to have this unique serial number and location info be programmed into it electronically?

I’m not sure what this question is asking exactly. However, I don’t believe the tags would need to have a unique physical serial number. The most important thing is for the software to recognize which tag is being referred to; in other words, each tag should have a unique software identification number, so that if it is scanned (via RFID for example) the database software can “recognize” which tag was scanned.

Question: Is there a specific axis of strain that the tag must measure? Or is it the axis on the track web that has the most strain? Which axis/direction on the web does the tag need to measure?

This is something that is being left up to the contractor performing the work. However, clearly a position with a maximum amount of bending deformation should be chosen so that wheel loads (or truck loads or car loads) can be detected as accurately as possible.

Question: What range of railcar speeds must the tag operate under? Can we have different tags for low speed and high speed trains?

This tag is primarily meant to be used in areas/subdivisions where rail integrity (internal rail defects) is a concern. Rail integrity is generally a much larger issue on freight lines (not passenger lines). Therefore, the maximum speed will probably be 60 miles per hour, since that is the maximum speed at which freight trains typically travel.

Question: Does the tag have to measure the loads directly or can it use indirect sensing modalities/methods to extrapolate the effective loading?

Loading is a secondary concern in this project. The primary concern is the ease of usability of the tag (as well as the cost effectiveness of the tag) and eventually the user-friendliness of the database software that would accompany the tags. Therefore, the loads don’t have to be measured directly; a rough order of magnitude estimate will suffice.

Question: What is the maximum distance allowed from the handheld reader to the emplaced tag? Is there a maximum readout time?

We didn’t have a maximum distance in mind. However, it would be nice if the tag could be read from an inspector’s hi-rail vehicle as he/she traverses the track, but this is not a necessity. Cost effectiveness of the tag is probably more important than the distance at which it can be read.

Question: Can mounting holes be drilled in the rail? Or must the rail be completely unaltered (other than cleaning and/or clamping) for tag attachment?

Holes cannot be drilled into the rail. Cleaning/clamping is okay, but keep in mind that the more cumbersome it is to apply the tag, the less likely it is that railroads will adopt the technology.

Question: Are you looking for a Rolling Contact Fatigue (RCF) life prediction model? 

Not for this project. Perhaps it is something we would consider researching in the future.

Question:  Will DOT provide the test ground for testing the Tag? If yes, please describe location, contact info, etc.

There is no specific test site in mind, but FRA will help the awardee make contact with one or more railroads who may be interested in field testing the technology.

Question:  Are you open to an alternative measurement method for diagnosing rail fatigue? Or would you only accept a measurement system that measures load cycles? Or a combination of both?

Yes, we would be open to another measure of rail fatigue, but the cost of the device should remain low.  And, in general, the primary goal is a device for tagging rail in order to form a “rail database” and associated software.  The secondary goal is a wheel counter or some other rail fatigue metric. For example, even if the wheel counter (or other fatigue metric) were to fail or run out of power, then the user of the device should be able enter (in the associated software) approximate wheel loads based on their rail traffic and tonnage.

Question:  Can you be more specific about a “removable and replaceable” device? What are unacceptable means of attachment?

The method of attachment is something that is being left to the contractor to propose. However, no holes or notches can be made in the rails.

Question:  How frequent is the data transfer to the hand held device?

It depends on the railroad’s inspection policies, but probably at least once per week.

Question:  Is there an existing technology used to carry out this task right now? Or measure wheel load cycles?

Not to my knowledge.

Question:  What is your desired cost range for the device?

No particular range in mind. However, in general, I don’t think the device would be practical for railroads if it cost more than around $100 per unit since so many of them would need to be installed and even re-installed when there are rail breaks or when new track is put down. The cheaper it is per device, the more likely it will be adopted by industry. If the device is removable, then it could cost a little more since it could be re-used. If it can’t be re-used once installed, then it should cost less.

14.1-FR3 Easy Access to Freight Locomotives

Question: Is this product intended to replace the current general design of freight locomotive steps?

Yes. It could be an add-on also.

Question: Is there a target mass for this product?

Total Population of Locomotives is around 25000. About 1500 to 2000 are built new.

Question:  Is this meant to be an add-on to existing freight locomotives ie., does proposal need to consider after market application also?

Yes. Retrofit would be a desirable attribute.