Department of the navy (don) 17. 1 Small Business Innovation Research (sbir) Proposal Submission Instructions introduction

REFERENCES:

1. Rubin, Stuart H. and Lee, Gordon K. “Integration of reusable systems, ch. Cloud-Based Tasking, Collection, Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination in a Case-Based Reasoning System." pp. 1-26, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 20

2.Zaerens, Klaus. "Enabling the Benefits of Cloud Computing in a Military Context." Asia-Pacific Conference on Services Computing. 2006 IEEE, pp. 166-173, 2011 IEEE Asia -Pacific Services Computing Conference, 2011.

3. Office of Naval Research. “Data Focused Naval Tactical Cloud (DF-NTC).” Office of Naval Research, 24 June 2014. http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Funding-Announcements/BAA/2014/14-011-Attachment-0001.ashx.-

4. USW-DSS and various data sources diagram (uploaded in SITIS on 02/02/17)

KEYWORDS: Data exchange; Data Models; Data Cloud; Ontology for Information Sciences; Web Data Services; Data Translation Services

Questions may also be submitted through DoD SBIR/STTR SITIS website.

N171-059

TITLE: Verification and Optimization of Advanced Finite Element Modeling Techniques for Complex Submarine Hull Structures

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground/Sea Vehicles

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMS450 VIRGINIA Class Program Office; PMS397 OHIO Replacement Program

OBJECTIVE: Develop and validate a design tool for use in the creation of finite element models (FEM) and assessing the accuracy of finite element analysis results of complex submarine structures in critical areas of joints and stress concentrations.

DESCRIPTION: The Navy is interested in the development of a design tool to be used when developing FEMs of large and complex submarine structures to ensure that results accurately reflect the response of a real-world structure. The design tool must be applicable to a wide range of FEA software and be cost effective to implement. The intended end product will be a design procedure or manual (the design tool), which will be validated against physical model tests, and will define a set of parameters to be used by the Shipyard when performing finite element analysis (FEA) on complex structures.

The current structural design methodology of submarine pressure hulls involves the use of empirically developed and historically validated stability equations in conjunction with extensive computational analysis to assess the stress state of the pressure hull under hydrostatic pressure. The computational effort requires the development and evaluation of numerous finite element models comprising the pressure hull and pressure hull support structure. The engineering effort associated with the execution of these calculations and development of the associated deliverable reports forms a significant portion of the overall Non Recurring Engineering (NRE) budget for a submarine program.

The status quo in terms of creating FEMs of a submarine pressure hull is to model the bulk of the hull, frame, and bulkhead structure with two-dimensional (2D) plate elements. 2D models are easier to create, modify, and require less computational power to analyze than three-dimensional (3D) solid element models. The underlying math for 2D elements is based on thin-shell theory, and 2D elements have been demonstrated to be accurate in predicting the stress state in thin-walled structures. However, the structure of a submarine pressure hull is significantly more complex than a simple stiffened pressure vessel. There are multiple areas in typical submarine pressure hulls where the applicability of thin shell theory is highly dependent on the modeling methodology used. Examples of these geometries would include offset tapers between thick and thin portions of the pressure hull shell and at the intersections of thick bulkhead and hull plating. As submarine designs have become more optimized and the use of finite element analysis (FEA) has become more prevalent to predict stresses in areas of complex geometry, the modeling techniques used, including the choice of element type, size, and boundary conditions, becomes more critical. As FEM usage expands to evaluate different structural configurations, use of a certain modeling technique is assumed by the Shipyard to apply to all structural configurations, without performing the necessary evaluations to assure that the FEM technique used are appropriate and applicable. Conflicts between the Navy and the Shipyards occur when there is disagreement about the adequacy and accuracy of a chosen technique used to evaluate a certain structural configuration. Because of the differences in position between Design Yard and the Navy concerning the correct modeling strategy to use for a certain structure, the Navy technical community often raises concerns during reviews of shipbuilder design products. These technical concerns often lead to additional analyses, design cost increases and schedule delays for current submarine programs.

The Navy desires a design tool to provide the design agent with clear and specific modeling and analytical requirements, which explicitly defines how complex geometries shall be modeled and with what level of fidelity. By providing clear analytical requirements, the tool will limit disagreements between the Design Yard and NAVSEA concerning the technical adequacy of the modeling technique used by the Design Yard to predict stresses in the submarine structure. By limiting the amount of rework performed by the Design Yard, NRE and schedule cost increases will be avoided.

PHASE I: The company will develop a concept for the development of a design tool to improve finite element modeling (FEM) practices for complex geometries within submarine pressure hulls. The company will provide plans for physical model testing of various submarine structures (e.g., Bridge Access Trunk B Main Sea Water hull insert, hard tanks) for comparison with analytical methods that will be employed to develop the design tool. The company will indicate how the testing and analytical efforts will be combined to produce a useful product for the Navy. Phase I should include proposed geometries to be examined in Phase II. The Phase I Option, if awarded, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype in Phase II.

PHASE II: Based on the results of Phase I effort and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), the company will develop and deliver a prototype Finite Element Modeling design tool for evaluation. The prototype will be evaluated to determine its capability to clearly and specifically define analytical requirements as defined in the Phase II SOW. The Phase II design tool will incorporate lessons learned from analytic results performed on the geometries proposed in Phase I. Since test data for this topic does not currently exist, the design tool will be evaluated based upon the analytic results provided and the proposed testing plan that will be used to correlate the results. Phase II will include detailed test plans to be followed in Phase III. Test plans will include proposed test sites, model procurement, and instrumentation guides. The company will prepare a Phase III development plan to transition the technology for Navy and potential commercial use.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The company will be expected to support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use. The company will further refine, build and test complex geometries mimicking those examined analytically in Phase II. Test data will be processed and correlated to the plate and solid models. With the accuracy of the correlations established, the company will finalize the design tool according to the Phase III SOW. The company will support the Navy in verifying and validating the tool for Navy use across all submarine platforms. Depending on the length of Phase III, the first platform to realize benefits from the design tool is expected to be the OHIO Replacement. Private Sector Commercial Potential: The design tool is applicable whenever finite element modeling is used to predict stresses in complex steel structure due to hydrostatic or uniform pressure. Two examples in the shipbuilding industry are the modeling of connections of ballast tank bulkheads to the hull of semi-submersible heavy lift vessels, and the modeling of transitions of thick bow and keel plating to thinner typical plate on icebreakers.

REFERENCES:

1. Timoshenko, Stephen. “The Theory of Plates and Shells.” 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959.

2. Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R. L., and Fox, D.D. “The Finite Element Method for Solid and Structural Mechanics.” 7th Edition. Waltham, MA: Elsevier Ltd, 2014.-

KEYWORDS: Finite Element Modeling; Verification Testing; Structural Analysis; Complex Geometry; Stress Concentrations; Submarine Hull Structure.

Questions may also be submitted through DoD SBIR/STTR SITIS website.

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials/Processes

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: Cross Platform Systems Development (CPSD)

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

OBJECTIVE: Develop explosive feedstock for use in commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) 3-D printer systems.

DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Navy requires a near-term, affordable solution to develop explosive feedstock for use in the additive manufacturing (3D printing) of warheads, propellants, and pyrotechnic systems. Additive manufacturing is a collection of seven technologies (material extrusion, material jetting, binder jetting, powder bed fusion, vat photo polymerization, directed energy deposition, and sheet lamination) that have been revolutionizing manufacturing across the country due to the reduction in development time, potential cost savings, and the precision deposition of material to produce unique products. The rapid development of these technologies by industry, academia, and government groups has focused exclusively on the utilization of inert (non-explosive) production of feedstock. Inert feedstock has quickly expanded from soft and hard thermoplastics to metals, ceramics, and even paper. However, explosive formulations for use in military applications have traditionally utilized elastomeric (polymer) materials, which provide the requisite mechanical, chemical, and aging properties necessary for ordnance. Thus, a gap has formed between additive manufacturing of explosives for use in Navy ordnance and the availability of feedstock applicable to explosive printing.

The development of explosive feedstock for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) 3D printer systems will require innovation that combines polymer chemistry, experience in working with explosives, and expertise in additive manufacturing. Efforts to develop the feedstock could begin by understanding the current elastomeric requirements of explosive formulations, which typically utilize hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) elastomeric systems. From there numerous paths become possible, such as exploring thermal-elastomers that can be extruded by COTS systems such as Makerbot, which utilizes fused deposition modeling (material extrusion), that could meet ordnance requirements. Other possibilities include development of more advanced binder jetting feedstock, such as developing jetted elastomeric binders into optimized powder beds.

The resulting explosive feedstock shall be usable in current COTS systems. It shall satisfy the mechanical, chemical, and aging property requirements of the ordnance. It shall maintain performance and safety of a comparable qualified explosive formulation. If the approach to this topic is found to be sound following the review, a mutually acceptable existing qualified explosive formulation will be selected as the benchmark for performance and safety comparisons. The feedstock and final printed parts shall follow explosive safety policies outlined in OPNAVINST 8020.14A (the Department of the Navy Explosives Safety Policy Manual) and its referenced documents. The feedstock developed will utilize relevant explosive molecules, fuels, and oxidizers such as cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX), cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine (HMX), and/or hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane (CL-20); aluminum or boron; and ammonium perchlorate, respectively.

Business case analysis efforts have demonstrated flat, production-volume independent costs when producing items via 3D printing over traditional manufacturing, where traditional manufacturing often becomes increasingly costly for lower production volumes. Often the production volume for ordnance is low, and requires a long and costly start-up process, as production lines are often not maintained year-to-year. The development of explosive feedstock for use in commercial-off-the-shelf 3D printer systems would enable the replacement of existing manufacturing processes in particular for low production volume, smaller ordnance items that would yield significant cost savings (= 25% cost reduction per item) to the Navy. Therefore, the proposers shall provide a business case analysis that projects the costs of the proposed energetic feedstock and that feedstock’s production costs at a range of volumes produced (on the order of 100 to 1000 items). Comparisons to costs associated with producing existing inert feedstock must be provided.

PHASE I: The company will develop a concept for the development of explosive feedstock for use in COTS 3D printers capable of meeting the requirements in the description section. The company will demonstrate the feasibility of the concept in meeting Navy needs and will establish that the concept can be feasibly developed into a useful product for the Navy. Feasibility will be established by assessing the quality of the preliminary explosive feedstock, the ability for the feedstock to be utilized in COTS 3D printers safely to yield a small-scale printed explosive structure, and the likelihood that the feedstock could be produced in larger quantities at an acceptable cost of about 25% cost reduction to the Navy . The Phase I Option, if awarded, will address a plan for technical risk reduction, provide performance goals, and give key technical milestones. The Phase I Option will include the initial design specifications, system for delivery, and capabilities description to build a prototype system in Phase II.

PHASE II: Based on the results of Phase I and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), the small business will develop and demonstrate a prototype system for delivery that will produce explosive feedstock. The produced feedstock shall be applicable to one type of additive manufacturing technology (such as material extrusion or binder jetting). The prototype system shall have the ability to operate remotely. The company will demonstrate system performance through the evaluation of the feedstock produced, to include a comparison to a mutually acceptable traditionally manufactured qualified explosive formulation, as well as the usability in the selected COTS 3D printer technology. The company will use the evaluation results to refine the prototype into an initial design that will meet Navy requirements. The company will prepare a Phase III development plan to transition the technology to Navy and potential commercial use.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The company will be expected to support the Navy in transitioning the technology to its energetic enterprises, such as Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head EOD Technology Division (NSWC-IHEODTD) or Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWC-WD). The company will further refine a remotely operated system that produces explosive feedstock for use in a specific 3D printer technology. The company will support the Navy for test and validation at its energetic enterprises (NSWC-IHEODTD or NAWC-WD) to certify and qualify the system for Navy use. A manual of the system capabilities and limitations will need to be created to ensure appropriate use of the system. Private Sector Commercial Potential: A remotely operated explosive feedstock production system would be of great use to the Navy and other military branches, but would find use in commercial blasting, mining, or oil industries. A system for producing feedstock for 3D printers enables such industries to utilize COTS 3D printers to create customized explosive charges with minimal waste, at a reduced cost, and with a reduced development time. Additionally, producing feedstock as needed reduces the hazard of storing large quantities of explosive in magazines for future use. It is expected that commercial applications will need to be coordinated and licensed by relevant federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to insure legitimate usage.

REFERENCES:

1. Harris, Russ. "The 7 Categories of Additive Manufacturing.” Loughborough University Additive Manufacturing Research Group. Loughborough University. 25 March 2016. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/amrg/about/the7categoriesofadditivemanufacturing.

2. Jordan, Bryant. “3-D Printing Parts and Explosive May Reshape Fleet, Ship's Manning.” Military.com. 2015. Daily News Military.Com. 25 March 2016. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/15/3d-printing-parts-and-explosive-may-reshape-fleet-ships.html.-

KEYWORDS: 3D Printing; Additive Manufacturing; Binder Jetting; Elastomers; Polymers; Thermoelastomers

Questions may also be submitted through DoD SBIR/STTR SITIS website.

N171-061

TITLE: Fusion Center/GUI for Shipboard Maintenance Activities and Supply Chain

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: Program Executive Office Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) 1.0 –AEGIS Combat System

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

OBJECTIVE: Develop a GUI for shipboard Prognostic Health Management that optimizes innovative data visualization schemas and techniques for all available ship maintenance data.

DESCRIPTION: A basic tenet of Condition-Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) and Prognostic Health Management (PHM) is the use of machine data and algorithms to predict equipment failure in order to suggest that maintenance be performed in advance of that failure. The value of this approach has been well documented and is in fact a central focus of future Naval maintenance and logistics capability. However, knowing that a piece of equipment is predicted to fail does not adequately address whether or not maintenance can, should, or will be performed. The Navy seeks true operational readiness over and above equipment readiness via a comprehensive Graphical User Interface (GUI), where PHM results are simply the first step of a decision-tree approach to maintenance planning. The GUI approach developed must also include maintenance decision-making factors such as built-in redundancy, personnel availability, future mission need and planning, logistics impact, and strike group support. This is not currently possible with existing Navy systems.

Today, equipment status reporting systems such as Integrated Condition Assessment System (ICAS) and Operational Readiness Test System (ORTS) collect large amounts of data, which require human interpretation on shore in order to be useful for CBM+ and PHM. Additionally, these large data sets only present part of the picture; they only aid in understanding equipment condition. The Navy seeks a decision support GUI that is able to combine real-time equipment health results (created via advanced algorithms) with other large data sets of new and unstructured data in order to provide a comprehensive picture of shipboard operations. This solution would present data from disparate sources that are in different formats in order to provide a comprehensive view of situational awareness in order for these factors to weigh in on a decision to take maintenance action. It must take into consideration the development of maintenance algorithms that advance a definition of maintenance and operational need (reference 2). For example, equipment may be determined to need repair, but the overall need of the ship may dictate that the work should not be completed because there is no mission need. Thus, the understanding of measuring the mission need would have to be included when offering the decision within the GUI. As part of the enhanced decision-support capability, PHM calculations of availability would need to include certain support elements such as logistics (e.g., part and tool availability) and could also include future mission need, providing multi-tiered results depending upon specific shipboard operating conditions.

The US Navy drives to maintain a very high operational availability. It cannot do that without the proper tools in place for the shipboard maintainers. An improved GUI to enable CBM+ and PHM prognostics will make use of the available data and allow shipboard maintainers to make data driven decisions about their systems. The right data at the right time via this GUI would make it easier to maintain a high operational availability, drive down the number of spares required shipboard, and enable just in time delivery of spares based on system status. With the GUI, it has the potential to reduce the number of man hours required to maintain the system; if there is no reduction in man hours, there is the potential to at least make more efficient use of the man hours required.

The Phase II effort will likely require secure access, and NAVSEA will process the DD254 to support the contractor for personnel and facility certification for secure access. The Phase I effort will not require access to classified information. If need be, data of the same level of complexity as secured data will be provided to support Phase I work.

PHASE I: The company will develop an approach for the development of a Fusion Center/GUI for Shipboard Maintenance Activities and Supply Chain software solution for shipboard Prognostic Health Management that addresses the utility, affordability, and relevance of including multiple sources of non-maintenance data within a CBM+ environment. The small business will explore the feasibility of the proposed technology to meet the intent of expanded CBM+ prognostics in support of shipboard maintenance. The feasibility of proposed approaches will be established through Subject Matter Expert (SME) review of GUI models and their incorporation of Human Systems Integration (HSI) features to support advanced decision-making activities. The company will also define a plan of action for technology development, testing, and integration into a Combat Systems cross-domain environment.