Army 17. 1 Small Business Innovation Research (sbir) Proposal Submission Instructions

PHASE II: Phase II is a significant R&D effort resulting in swatches and full width sample materials. Additionally, the fabric developed must be producible in 500 yard lengths or more in an automated manner. The Phase II effort will significantly improve upon on the performance and manufacturability of the fabric technology developed under Phase I. This effort will not exceed 2 years or $1M in cost.

Required Phase II tasks and deliverables will include:

o Development and prototype of the hyperspectral material solutions for the remaining two (or three) operational environments across the VIS-NIR-SWIR bands.

o A plan of action for how to achieve both personnel and facility security clearances for the awardee’s organization.

o Once a security clearance is granted by DSS, the awardee shall develop and prototype hyperspectral material solutions for the entire threat spectrum (UV through Radar) for each of the four operational environments. Three swatches for each operational environment shall be constructed with an area of 1 m2 each.

o The awardee shall also develop four (4) full scale prototypes in the form of a hexagon; one for each of the four (4) terrain types (woodland, desert, urban, arctic). The materials used in the construction of the prototypes must be capable of hyperspectral blending across the threat spectrum. Each prototype should be in the dimensions found on page 1-7 of ULCANS Technical Manual (TM 5-1080-250-12&P). Each full scale prototype does not require the installation of becket loops but at least each corner must have a means to use in staking the system to the ground. The length of each hexagon shall be 32.2 ft. across, the width shall be 27.9 ft. and the area of the hexagon shall be 673.6 sq. ft.

o Laboratory testing results of the hyperspectral swatches designed to blend into the entire threat spectrum (BRDF, DHR, Emissivity, etc.)

o Laboratory report of accelerated aging results (300hrs of continuous light exposure on a QUV Weatherometer with intermittent condensation cycle. Reference AATCC Method 186, Option 1 for guidance)

o Formulation used to produce samples

o Monthly reports that detail progress in the form of a 4-8 page technical report indicating accomplishments, project progress and spending against schedule, associated data tables, graphics, and any other test data for each month of the effort. These reports may be classified.

o A final report suitable for publishing onto the Defense Technical Information Center that describes the project and the work performed with a classified addendum that gives full detail and test results of the materials developed, their performance and the method by which the goals were achieved.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The initial use of this technology is for military camouflage applications, but we foresee an extension of the technology to military vehicles on the move, shelters and stationary military assets. Additional applications include the possibility for use in concealing large unsightly manmade structures within a natural environment by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and potentially by the Federal Aviation Administration for use in hiding different areas of airports. Additional applications could be used to either provide shade for large assets as a means of energy reduction or be incorporated into another system as a means of electromagnetic shielding or insulation.

REFERENCES:

1. Joint Committee on Tactical Shelters (JOCOTAS)

2. Technical Manual for Ultra-Lightweight Camouflage Net Systems (ULCANS) TM 5-1080-250-12&P

3. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TEST METHOD STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS - MIL-STD-810G

4. PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION TENT, EXTENDABLE, MODULAR, PERSONNEL (TEMPER) –MIL-PRF-44271C

5. Technology Readiness Assessment

KEYWORDS: camouflage, textile, spectral, concealment, signature management

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials/Processes

OBJECTIVE: Military deployable laundry systems consume large amounts of water cleaning soldier uniforms, under wear, and towels. The objective of this effort is to develop an innovative, low water consumption or “waterless” laundry system that exhibits military hardening, conforms to existing transport and logistics requirements, and ensures military personnel can service the equipment. A low flow or “waterless” laundry system will allow for laundry functions at more austere locations currently constrained by limited water and fuel resupply. This in turn will increase the morale, welfare and hygiene for soldiers deployed at remote basecamps, increasing overall mission readiness and effectiveness of our Army.

DESCRIPTION: U.S. Army high-level objectives dictate that basecamp efficiencies shall be increased, and in turn, the frequency of water and fuel resupply operations decreased. In support of this mandate, Force Provider and the US Army medical community aim to field more efficient and expedient laundry systems. An additional benefit to increasing laundry efficiency, is the ability to provide this function at remote and resource-constrained basecamps, further increasing Warfighter morale, welfare and hygiene where it may be needed most.

Historically, the Containerized Batch Laundry (CBL) system has been deployed with U.S. Army Force Provider 600-man “Rest and Refit” or “Theater Reception” operating bases to provide a laundry service for returning troops between mission operations. These established basecamps were supplied sufficient water and fuel, and could thereby afford committing resources to laundry functions. The CBL consisted of a 20 ft. ISO container containing two large commercial washers and two similar sized dryers, all mated to a 32 ft. TEMPER tent. The overarching requirement for this system was to clean all rotating troop uniforms within 3 days; which was the length of the soldiers’ stay on base.

The Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) for the individual that operated the laundry facility was 92S (Shower/Laundry and Clothing Repair Specialist), while MOS 91J (Quartermaster and Chemical Equipment Repair Specialist) performed maintenance and repair on the CBL system. 92S trained personnel would receive soldiers' laundry, inventory (by identity tag), prepare it for laundering, and perform the wash and dry cycle. This was done to allow for multiple soldiers' laundry to be processed simultaneously, with confidence of returning laundry to the rightful owner after cleaning. The expected throughput was 15 lbs. of soldier laundry per week. This process resulted in a cumbersome logistic trail, and extended the time between soldiers delivering their clothing for cleaning, and receiving their cleaned clothes back from the facility. Force Provider is now focusing on “individual-serviced” laundry systems, and transitioning away from the collective cleaning of laundry as a “service”.

In recent years, Force Provider has standardized their common shipping platform to a TRICON container, and developed a new laundry system to conform to this standard. The Expeditionary TRICON System - Batch Laundry (ETS-BL) consists of a TRICON container, with a single conventional 50 lbs. commercial UNIMAC washer and 75 lbs. UNIMAC dryer installed. Using this system, laundry alone constitutes 36% of the daily water consumption at a Force Provider basecamp. The washer itself consumes 68 gals. per ~45 lbs. load of laundry. For 30 soldiers, at 15 lbs. of laundry each (or 10 loads of laundry), this estimates to 680 gals. of wash water consumed in 10 hours of cumulative washing and drying time. Energy consumed in that period of time for heating of the wash water, drying clothing, environmental control of the TRICON container, and any miscellaneous items (lighting etc...) is equal to 124 kWh. Of the 124 kWh, 46 kWh is used by the washer, environmental control, and lighting. The remaining 78 kWh are consumed by only the dryer. These metrics can be seen as baseline values in Table 1.

As another example, field deployed hospitals have an even greater proportionate laundry water consumption rate, as they not only wash uniforms and hospital linens, but also run sterilization cycles in their Hospital - Containerized Batch Laundry (H-CBL) system. The H-CBL is effectively identical to the ETS-BL except that it has twice the number of machines (and throughput) and is configured in a 20 ft. ISO container vs. the Force Provider ETS-BL’s TRICON container. In the U.S. Army 248 Bed Combat Support Hospital (CSH), H-CBL laundry facilities consume 6,720 gals. of the total 15,875 gals. potable water consumed in a day. At 42% of the total water consumed, laundry exhibits the highest consumption rate of any single functional area at field-deployed hospitals.

The U.S. Army has conducted a preliminary investigation into several alternative laundry systems in an effort to reduce the demand-side water requirement at forward operating bases. Systems investigated included liquid CO2 and polymeric bead-assisted washing, but none have yet demonstrated integration into military deployed infrastructure, nor have been evaluated for efficacy in military garment cleaning. Regardless of the technology pursued by the offeror, it is vital that the proposed system exhibit intuitive operation, and be user serviceable to the greatest extent possible. Specifically, offerors should ensure that the system conforms to, or is acceptable for incorporation into 92S and 91J MOS training requirements. In addition, the integrated laundry system should conform to all transport requirements, which include those of air cargo, helicopter sling-load, 10,000 lbs. forklift, intermodal transport (by ship or rail), and truck/trailer transport.

The proposed technology should also exhibit high cleaning efficacy in situations where Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POLs), blood, urine, feces, vomit, and mildew are present on garments and linens. Though the military does not have a formal specification for “cleanliness”, the proposed system efficacy can be evaluated through side-by-side comparison of cleaned and uncleaned samples. The procedure for this test involves staining a lab coat material sample with pig's blood, grass, soil, and motor oil, and then taking photo-spectroscopy measurements before and after laundering in the delivered laundry system. The resultant values are compared to results from existing laundry systems, namely the (legacy) M85, Laundry Advanced System (LADS), CBL, and ETS-BL. In addition, soldier qualitative feedback on shrinkage, odor, and garment “feel” will also be used as performance measures.

It is imperative that the proposed system life-cycle cost is also considered by the offeror. The fully burdened cost of resupply to forward operating basecamps is $1.76 per gal. of water and $2.90 per gal. of fuel. The current ETS-BL should be considered as the baseline technology for this effort to improve upon. At 680 gals. of wash water consumed in a day, the ETS-BL daily water costs are $1,196.80. A fully-loaded 60kW Tactical Quiet Generator consumes 5.06 gals. per 60kWh generated. Given the aforementioned 124kWh consumed in a 10 hour wash a day (10 loads of laundry) by the ETS-BL, the 60kW generator will consume 10.5 gals. of fuel to power it, resulting in a daily fuel cost of $30.33. Detergent is inexpensive at $0.35 per load, resulting in $3.50 in detergent costs a day. The total daily water, fuel and consumables cost for 10 loads of laundry is $1,230.63, or $123.06 per 45 lbs. load.

In order to reduce the Army’s reliance on potable water, and thereby reduce the need for high-risk resupply operations, it has been determined that a reduction in laundry water consumed would have the most significant overall net effect on military resource consumption. As we are aiming to address multiple U.S. Army agencies’ requirements, the proposed laundry system should exhibit the following characteristics:

• Shall meet or exceed the Threshold metrics established in Table 1.

• Shall be operationally deployable within a 6’ x 8’ x 8’ TRICON container, alongside a right-sized dryer, or exhibit washing and drying capability all on its own.

• Shall not exceed a system total weight (including container) of 10,000 lbs. This is a Force Provider Material Handling Equipment (MHE) requirement. Offeror should aim to meet objective values in Table 1.

• Shall process a minimum of 15 lbs. of laundry (a single soldier’s laundry for a week).

• Shall not interfere or cause a hazardous condition when washed fabrics are dried with conventional drying processes.

• Shall not deteriorate or degrade military garments and hospital linens at an expedited rate, relative to commercial laundry solutions.

• Shall exhibit high efficacy in cleaning of both organic, non-organic and Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant (POL) based stains.

• Shall minimize the logistical burden on the supply chain, and not require the transportation of unsafe or hazardous materials/chemicals.

• Shall interface with 100A or 60A Class-L 208V 3-phase power connector (MIL-DTL-22992).

• Shall not use a proprietary detergent, or consumable.

• Shall exhibit a life-cycle cost comparable to or lower than incumbent laundry systems, for equal throughput and capacity. This considers cost of consumables (including water and fuel), maintenance items, and the initial capital cost of the equipment over a 5 year period.

• Shall provide an environmentally controlled environment to the laundry operator.

• May run in either a batch or continuous mode.

• May exhibit additional capability such as chemical application (permethrin, hydrophobic coating), or sanitation through chemical means, pressure and/or heat.

PHASE I: The awardee shall propose a 6 month period of performance with 4 month option period, to research and develop an innovative laundry (washing and drying) system addressing the aforementioned requirements.

In addition, in order to fulfill reporting requirements, the awardee shall report monthly on their progress, in the form of a 4-8 page technical report indicating accomplishments, project progress against proposed schedule (manage to budget), tables, graphics, and any other associated test data.

Deliverables:

o Six monthly reports, with each report containing the following:

o Expenditure to date, against proposed schedule.

o Technical progress to date, against proposed schedule.

o Technical achievement highlights, as well as problems or decision-points reached.

o Within first two reports, present market research of all existing and future laundry solutions and their applicability to a military deployment.

o Final Technical Report, submitted within 15 days after contract termination, containing the following:

o Plumbing and power interfacing plan, ensuring interoperability with Force Provider basecamp infrastructure.

o Conceptual drawings of the TRICON containerized laundry facility.

o A list of maintenance items, frequency of replacing such items, and specific training required.

o A material degradation analysis, of textiles being subjected to the respective wash cycle.

o A cost analysis of the systems life cycle, including the cost of maintenance items and consumables, as well as the initial capital cost of procuring the system – over 5 years.

PHASE II: Phase II is a significant R&D effort resulting in a well-defined washing and drying laundry solution that is reproducible, and exhibits confidence in transition to both military and commercial markets. The Phase II effort will significantly improve upon the performance and efficiency of the conceptual design developed under Phase I. This effort will not exceed 2 years or $1M in cost.

Required Phase II tasks and deliverables will include:

• “Monthly” and “Final” reporting, as mentioned for Phase I, to cover the 24 month Phase II “Period of Performance”.

• Generate technical drawings of a TRICON integrated laundry solution, exhibiting both washing and drying functions.

• Devise laundry facility maintenance plan, and indicate all supplies needed, including cost, quantity, and frequency of replacement thereof.

• Deliver a complete TRICON-based laundry system exhibiting the desirable performance characteristics as shown in Table 1.

• Demonstrate functionality and increased efficiency over incumbent laundry system in a side-by-side test to be conducted at the Base Camp Integration Lab, Fort Devens, MA.

• Demonstrate interoperability with Force Provider water, power and fuel infrastructure.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The initial use of this technology is for military expeditionary basing systems, but we foresee an extension of the technology to other governmental organizations and commercial industry. For example, the following areas have been identified as commercial markets requiring improvements in the efficiency of fabric laundering:

• Cleaning and/or sanitation of medical garments during domestic and global disease pandemics

• Linen cleaning in the hotel and hospitality industry

• Fabric coating and material sciences industry

• Manufacturing-related textile preparation for dyes

REFERENCES:

1. MIL-DTL-22992 – Detail Specification – Connectors, Plugs and Receptacles, Electrical, Waterproof, Quick Disconnect, Heavy Duty Type, General Specification For
http://www.landandmaritime.dla.mil/Downloads/MilSpec/Docs/MIL-DTL-22992/dtl22992.pdf

2. MIL-STD-810G – Test Method Standard – Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests

3. MIL-PRF-44103D – Performance Specification – Cloth, Fire, Water, and Weather Resistant

4. Force Provider - Containerized Batch Laundry

60kW Tactical Quiet Generator

6. MIL-STD-209K – Interface Standard for Lifting and Tie-down Provisions

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort is to develop a multi-dimensional, computer-aided stochastic model to simulate fire behavior in military shelters. The objective of the model is to reduce the amount of destructive testing required to evaluate fire safety considerations in rigid and soft-wall military shelters.

DESCRIPTION: The ability of our Warfighters to quickly exit a tent or rigid shelter in the event of a fire incident, is of utmost importance. Three soft-wall shelter fire-related incidents between 2013 and 2014, have motioned for a re-evaluation of current performance specifications, material selection, and design considerations. Existing shelter performance specifications only indicate component level requirements, and have no bearing on system level considerations. These component-level specifications do not consider the overall shelter enclosure design and how it contributes to flame, heat and smoke generation. However, when leveraging material improvements or the addition of fire retardant intumescent coatings, a system-level test for soft-walled shelters would be beneficial.

In a similar fashion, rigid-wall shelter performance requirements are limited to only components of the shelter system. Specifically, rigid-wall shelter flammability requirements only address the shelter wall’s composite core material, but not the “skin” material. This is due to the incumbent shelter’s “skin” material being made of aluminum, therefore, naturally non-flammable. Although, in order to improve shelter system performance, new, lighter and stronger fiber-based composites are being investigated to replace the aluminum skin. Given the limitations of existing performance requirements, prototype fiber-based composites have not been evaluated for rigid wall shelters as the destructive live burn testing of these would be cost prohibitive.

Currently, NSRDEC and its transition partners are seeking novel ways to evaluate system-level shelter considerations; to include: flame propagation, heat release, smoke generation, amongst many other factors. A three-dimensional stochastic modeling and simulation tool would improve the Army’s ability to design and evaluate shelter systems for fire-safe operation. The modeling and simulation tool provides for an inexpensive method to perform iterative design, material, or configuration changes at low cost, without having to conduct expensive live-fire destructive testing.

The U.S. Army is hereby soliciting for a software package that can import three-dimensional (CAD) models, such as soft and rigid-wall shelters, invoke flame ignition and visually simulate and quantify the effects of a fire scenario. Using a drafting programs such as SolidWorks, generated CAD models shall be inserted into software using STL, STEP, IGES or any other popular file format. Within the software the user shall be able to impinge a known ignition source on any point of the shelter system. The ignition source’s heat concentration, magnitude and duration shall be adjustable. The imported model’s component material properties, such as thermal conductivity, specific heat, melting point, and permeability must be modifiable.

The software package’s simulation shall also depict realistic internal and external environmental conditions, such as wind direction and magnitude, around and through the model’s material. Throughout the simulation, the software shall quantify heat released, smoke generated, thermal gradients within the model, material consumption by fire, oxygen concentration, and any other crucial fire safety related properties. Upon completion of the simulation, the user shall have the ability to quantify the aforementioned and be able to pause or “play back” the simulation by using a “timeline” or similar software feature.

Modeling software must have a graphical user interface and be user-friendly to a general engineer familiar with modeling and analysis software. The delivered software shall also be accompanied with a comprehensive user manual. The software package must be capable of running on the average computer available to the intended user, as depicted in Table 1 (TABLE 1 TO BE UPLOADED WITH TOPIC). The annual cost of operating the software should not exceed $10,000 per seat, to remain competitive with other simulation software packages.

PHASE I: The awardee shall propose a 6 month period of performance with 4 month option period, to research and develop the “alpha” version of a fire modeling and simulation software package. Upon the completion of Phase I, a software demonstration is requested in order to verify and validate the “alpha” version software’s capabilities. The capabilities expected for a Phase I “alpha” software deliverable are as follows: