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

OBJECTIVE: Free-space optical, or laser, communications have a number of attractive features: 1) increased bandwidth, 2) difficult to deny, and 3) difficult to exploit. The objective of this proposal is to develop a free-space optical terminal with a multi-beam transmit/receive capability that can be deployed on USN/USMC platforms.

DESCRIPTION: Laser communications have a number of attractive features, but a multi-beam transmit/receive capability is needed on ships, helicopters or wide-body aircraft to create a mesh network using point-to-point optical links. Such a system has not been demonstrated, but a number of different core technologies are available to develop such a system. Beam director options include: gimbals with domes or large windows, Risley prisms with tight temperature control / pointing correction, and liquid crystal directors with low transmittance/maturity. A number of multiple access techniques currently exist. These technologies need to be seamlessly integrated together. The proposed SBIR activity will integrate a beam director with a laser source(s) and multiple access technologies into a terminal that supports 2 to 3 simultaneous bi-directional laser links. In addition to the number of links supported, the field of view, size, weight, power, throughput, and expected terminal cost are also important performance parameters. As a point of comparison, the Navy funded the development of a single-beam optical terminal (see Reference 1) with an optical antenna that was less than 1 cubic foot in size and less than 20 lbs. in weight. The Navy seeks to have a multi-beam capability (i.e., 2 or more simultaneous beams) within a comparable footprint.

PHASE I: A preliminary design for a multi-beam terminal is delivered in Phase I. The base period will be used to develop a preliminary terminal design that includes performance estimates for the number of links that can be supported, field of view, size, weight, power, throughput, and anticipated terminal cost. The option, if exercised, will be used to further refine the preliminary design to address any technical or performance risks that are identified. The Navy will then assess the technical merits of the proposed design and its suitability for potential installation on ships, aircraft, and ground vehicles (given their different size, weight, and power limitations) for Phase II selection. An airborne terminal is of particular interest to the Navy since ships do not typically operate within line-of-sight of each other. A successful design must also include how the point, tracking, acquisition, and stabilization is accomplished to enable operations from mobile platforms (e.g., ships in high sea states, ground vehicles move at speed, airborne platform acting as a relay).

PHASE II: The base period will test critical technical components to validate the maturity and expected performance of the proposed Phase I design. Mitigations for any technical issues that are discovered during the Phase II testing should be proposed, tested, and validated. A final design will be delivered at the end of Phase II base period, with an assessment of its expected performance based on the testing of critical components. The objective of the base period is to have a breadboard demo showing a proof-of-concept design.

The first option, if exercised, will improve the preliminary terminal design to address any technical or performance risks identified during the Phase II base period. Again, the objective of this option is to have a breadboard demo showing a proof-of-concept design that addresses the Navy's concerns with the original design.

The second option, if exercised, will fund the fabrication of a multi-beam optical terminal and initial testing to validate its performance. The objective of this option is to have a functioning terminal with sufficient test data to validate its performance in a relevant environment.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Phase III will assess the prototype terminal's performance as part of a TRL 6 or higher demonstration to support a transition. Phase III includes the installation of the terminal on Navy or USMC platform, with all of the required gimbaling for pointing and tracking, to support a demonstration at an appropriate experimentation venue. Depending on the Program of Record, that could include either a Trident Warrior exercise at sea or Bold Alligator, or some equivalent, USMC exercise. Private Sector Commercial Potential: The private sector uses optical communications systems between fixed (e.g., buildings) and/or mobile sites. Private companies (i.e., SpaceX and OneWeb) are involved in efforts to deliver Internet service via a constellation of satellites in low earth orbit. Optical communications between these satellites could potentially provide the high capacity backbone required to deliver broadband services to end users. All of these private sector applications could benefit from multi-beam, optical terminal technology.

REFERENCES:

1. Linda Thomas and Chris Moore, TALON – Robust Tactical Optical Communications, CHIPS Magazine, Oct. – Dec. 2014. http://www.doncio.navy.mil/CHIPS/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=5550

2. Hemani Kaushal and Georges Kaddoum, Free Space Optical Communication: Challenges and Mitigation Techniques, Jun 2015. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.04836.pdf

3. Aditi Malik and Preeti Singh, Free Space Optics: Current Applications and Future Challenges, International Journal of Optics Volume 2015, Sep 2015. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijo/2015/945483/-

KEYWORDS: Laser, Optical, Communications, Free-space, Multiple Beam, Multiple Access

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

N171-090

TITLE: Understanding AM Solidification Profile Effects on Material Inhomogenieties, Defects, and Qualification

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platform, Ground/Sea Vehicles, Materials/Processes

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: Quality Metal Additive Manufacturing (Quality MADE) EPE FY17-03

OBJECTIVE: To develop a model relating the melting/solidification profile of metals/alloys to the metal/alloy microstructure during additive manufacturing (AM) processing. The model should describe how the melting/solidification profile influences the generation of microstructural inhomogeneities and defects as a function of power, speed and materials for a given AM process as a function of build depth. Process parameter correlation with different materials via integrated computational materials engineering (ICME) should be utilized so that defect and inhomogeneities can be minimized, part property variations within the component can be minimized, and its performance can be qualified.

DESCRIPTION: Navy acquisition programs are interested in reducing costs and reducing costly inventories, but need to be confident that the parts being manufactured by an AM process will meet qualification standards and provide use longevity with a high degree of confidence. Metal AM processes offer the potential to generate qualified parts quickly in order to maximize readiness of Navy air, sea and ground assets.

Various AM process-induced defects, spatial microstructural inhomogeneities, and induced stresses must be understood in order to minimize their occurrence and impact by AM process changes and post-processing. Melting and solidification is generally well-understood during casting processes, but melting and solidification profiles, effect of contamination, and chemistry control during AM processing, particularly for complex and thicker components, is 3-dimentional and is not well characterized. Heat transfer is relatively simple in the beginning, but as the part becomes larger and thicker there is concern that 3-dimensional heat transfer will modify the microstructure and subsequently the properties, of neighboring AM layers leading to distortions and possible sagging if the build plane is oriented improperly. Some AM processes produce smoke during the part build and it is unknown how the smoke may influence the AM build of a part, to what extent, if any, this “smoke” will contaminate the build pool (and if the build pool can be reused for subsequent AM builds of parts or not). Processing defects (e.g., micro-porosity and surface finish) dominate the fatigue properties of AM produced alloys. A strong anisotropy in fracture behavior was also noted and attributed to manufacturing defects. In addition, different metal AM methods impart diverse processing defects on alloys while properties of various alloys that will also influence AM processing variables. Using ICME (integrated computational materials engineering), models linking to materials/ processing/property/microstructure relationships can be created and developed to define the layer-by-layer heat transfer characteristics of given component geometry that will lead to models that will guide AM processes to produce more homogenous microstructures by modifying AM parameters during the build process. More uniformity in the AM build of a part will help define the steps towards component certification.

PHASE I: The small business needs to identify the types of 2D and 3D defects (mechanical and structural anisotropic, porosity, support material trapped between internal surfaces, etc.) and determine the causes of these defects. The melt/solid interface can be monitored in-situ or by taking an appropriate series of micrographs to determine heat flow characteristics of a component as a function of part depth. Topology optimization should be considered to identify the root cause of defects in an AM component and analyze the source and role a defects as a perturbation of AM process. Work should be done on AM processing of one alloy or metal. Analysis of the defects is suggested to be done by non-destructive processes such as optical tomography, thermographic analysis, ultrasonic monitoring or x-ray tomography. ICME should link AM process parameters with defect frequency and distribution in the component design, employ and prove feasibility of an approach for a metal AM method to replicate a simple component with a minimum dimensions of about 2-inch long by one-inch wide and one-inch thick with a minimum of flaws.

PHASE II: Based upon Phase I effort, apply ICME tools to metal AM processing, to predict design and processing parameter limits for a more complex component. Since most AM metal processes are layer-by-layer the organization needs to model the change in heat transfer as the layers are built on upon the other in an effort to minimize microstructural changes within the component. Work should be done on AM processing of one alloy or metal used during Phase I and also on a second metal or alloy to evaluate how changes in working materials may change AM processing parameters and resulting defect type and frequency. The process also needs to evaluate the surface roughness and dimensional accuracy of the AM component. The small business should utilize the results from Phase I to continue topology optimization of the AM metal process. Some mechanical testing should be done on an AM component and compared to a wrought component of similar size and shape to determine whether the frequency, distribution and type of defect influences component performance. Fatigue testing should also be considered for evaluation and comparison. Validation of ICME tools and predictive analysis capabilities will be analyzed by comparing the physical, metallurgical and mechanical properties of an AM component with a component currently fabricated by traditional means to validate optimization of the additive manufacturing process. An AM processing OEM should be consulted during Phase II.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Additive Manufactured will be transitioned into an application on a Navy platform. The OEM involved during Phase II will be part of the transition team. Phase III will include defining the additive manufacturing parameters for qualified full scale system production and establishing facilities capable of achieving full scale production capability of Navy-qualified components that have demonstrated process reliability and with a minimal of defects so that the component properties meet qualification standards. Private Sector Commercial Potential: The AM process offers the opportunity of conformal, and unique design not possible with more conventional fabrication processes. Proven AM process optimization leading to a minimization of process - and materials - derived defects would improve acceptance of AM for producing component for the Navy and for private industry. The use of AM could lead to more innovative designs capable of more efficiently removing heat because such designs could eliminate or severely reduce joints. AM processing of components that are qualified for Navy use could also be applied to commercial use. The use of AM could lead to more innovative designs capable meet ever-increasing demands on components for the Navy as such designs could eliminate or severely reduce joints. AM processing of components that are qualified for Navy use could also be applied to commercial use more quickly and less costly with parts are needed.

REFERENCES:

1. B.A. Cowles, D. Backman, “Advancement and Implementation of Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) for Aerospace Applications,” AFRL-RX-WP-TP-21010-4151.

2. W.E. Frazier, “Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review” Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, v.23(6) pp. 1917-1928 (June 2014).

3. M. F. Horstemeyer, “Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) For Metals”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2012.

4. I. Gibson, D. Rosen, B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, Springer, New York (2015).

5. T.J. Horn, Ola L.A. Harrysson, "Overview of current additive manufacturing technologies and selected applications", Science Progress, v.95 (3) pp. 255-282, (September 2012).-

KEYWORDS: Inhomogeities, defects, additive manufacturing, ICME, processing, quality control, qualification

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

N171-091

TITLE: Synthetic Vision System for Ground Forces

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics, Human Systems, Information Systems

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: CMP-FY15-01: Accelerating Development of Small Unit Decision Makers

OBJECTIVE: This effort seeks to accelerate and enhance decision making for Marine Corps Ground Forces by developing a Synthetic Vision System (SVS) extension for head-mounted displays (HMDs) to provide training aids and situational awareness (SA) visualizations.

DESCRIPTION: As tactical decision making is pushed down to lower echelons, tools to support the development and operations of ground force small unit decision makers remains an open challenge [1]. For example, ground-based warfighters are required to make quick decisions about any number of situations encountered in the battlefield. To inform these decisions warfighters must learn about these situations and associated skills (e.g. call-for-fire training) and then access and process data during operations. User interfaces and data sources (e.g. tablets) that require taking “eyes off” training or operations limits the warfighters ability to learn and respond to changing conditions. Head-mounted displays (HMDs) coupled with the emergence of Augmented Reality (AR) Technologies [2] offer hands-free user interfaces that can provide training aids and situational awareness (SA) in contextual formats that could minimize cognitive load without losing sight of the battlefield.

AR-based HMD for ground forces is conceptually similar to existing technology used by aviators. For example, Synthetic Vision Systems (SVS) have been shown to improve terrain awareness and potential reductions in controlled flight into terrain accidents over existing SA cockpit technologies. Notwithstanding those benefits, challenges remain with the use of synthetic vision displays in aviation, particularly in managing the allocation of attention [3,4]. Innovation is needed to take the lessons learned from aviation and apply them to the development of a ground-based AR-based HMDs in a cost-effective (less than $1,500) and Infantry Marine-friendly configuration – unobtrusive and not frustrating to end user to wear and operate. The focus of the proposed effort is on defining synthetic vision requirement specifications and functional prototypes for next-generation AR-based HMD technologies that provide operational training aids and SA decision-support and for ground based forces. The effort seeks advancements in visualizations to mitigate attention and perception limitations (e.g. attention tunneling) that have potential adverse effects on cognitive load. Visualization designs and prototypes should focus on two types of display configurations – static and dynamic. Static information displays are persistent and don’t change often regardless of context. Dynamic displays are non-persistent and information is displayed that aligns with specific contexts and tasks. Resulting specifications and proof-of-concepts for more-advanced AR-based HMD technologies will contribute to improvements in SVS design guidelines and recommendations.

Proposals must describe how information visualizations will address psychological and cognitive principles [5] and provide AR examples regarding representation of information [6]. Proposals, however, don’t need to develop a complete AR system [2], but must clearly describe how they will investigate and evaluate the proposed visualizations. All developments and experiments should be done with simulation engines that have no or minimal licensing fees for development or run-time execution (e.g. Unity). The focus of training and operations of SA tools should focus on support for Marine Corps call-for-fire training and missions. Examples of information to be investigated and visualized includes: user heading, bearing, range, target designation information (i.e. symbols, designation box, attack geometry, risk/area effect size (such as range rings)), airspace control measures (i.e. holding areas, battle positions, initial points), and fire support control measures (i.e. no fire areas or restricted fire areas).

PHASE I: Define requirements and develop mock-ups and/or very early prototypes for advanced SVS information/data visualizations that enhance warfighter decision making and situational awareness as it relates to call for fire and close air support activities. Requirements definitions and mock-ups / prototypes must include: a description of domain and tasks, a determination of the fundamental cognitive theories and principles that will be used to define the SVS visualizations, associated Augmented Reality (AR) approaches or properties (e.g. temporal, physical, and perceptual), a detailed discussion of the design trade-offs as they relate to hardware and software capabilities (e.g. 2D vs 3D visualization, egocentric vs. allocentric registration, etc.), and description of proposed methods, metrics, and analysis for designing and evaluating proposed visualizations. In addition, Phase II plans should be provided, to include list of potential hardware and software that will be used to demonstrate proof of concept visualizations, critical technical milestones, and plans for testing and validating proposed data visualizations. Finally, Phase I should also include the processing and submission of any necessary human subjects research protocols for Phase II research.

PHASE II: Develop, demonstrate, and evaluate proof of concept SVS information/data visualizations based on preliminary design requirements generated in Phase I. Appropriate engineering testing will be performed, along with a critical design review and finalizing the design of proposed visualizations. Phase II deliverables will include: working proof of concept visualizations, specifications for their development, and demonstration, validation, and report of results showing capability of visualizations to support warfighter decision making and situational awareness as they relate to call for fire and close air support.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The performer will be expected to support the Marine Corps in transitioning the requirements and associated software products to support the development of Synthetic Vision System (SVS) training aids and situational awareness (SA) visualizations, The software products are expected to be used to include integrating and/or support Marine Corps training simulations systems (e.g. Augmented Immersive Team Trainer), and will require certifying and qualifying the system for Marine Corps use, delivering a Marine Corps design manual for the product, and providing Marine Corps system specification materials. Private Sector Commercial Potential: From a commercial perspective, the resulting design methods, principles, and proof of concept visualizations will be applicable to high risk/high demand work domains with large amounts of integrated information demands, such as law enforcement, emergency response, healthcare, and manufacturing. It is anticipated that the general findings of this effort will contribute broadly to our understanding of the design of AR information and data visualizations that will have broad implications relating to the implementation of AR interfaces outside of the military.

REFERENCES:

1. Naval Research Advisory Committee (2009.) Immersive Simulation for Marine Corps Small Unit Training. Retrieved 6 June 2016 from http://www.nrac.navy.mil/docs/2009_rpt_Immersive_Sim.pdf

2. Schaffer, R., Cullen, S., Cerritelli, L., Kumar, R., Samarasekera,S., Sizintsev, M., Oskiper,T., Branzoi,V. (2015). Mobile Augmented Reality for Force-on-Force Training, in Proceeding of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference 2013. Arlington, VA: National Training and Simulation Association.

3. Bailey, R. E. (2012). Awareness and detection of traffic and obstacles using synthetic and enhanced vision systems. Retrieved 6 June 2016 from http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120001338

4. Wickens, C. D., & Alexander, A. L. (2009). Attentional tunneling and task management in synthetic vision displays. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 19(2), 182-199.

5. Bennett, K. B., & Flach, J. M. (1992). Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 34(5), 513-533.

6. Tönnis, M., Plecher, D. A., & Klinker, G. (2013). Representing information–Classifying the Augmented Reality presentation space. Computers & Graphics, 37(8), 997-1011.-

KEYWORDS: Augmented Reality (AR); Heads-up display (HUD); Helmet-mounted display (HMD); Decision Making; Synthetic Vision System (SVS); Attention

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

N171-092

TITLE: Pedagogy Models for Training in Mixed Reality Learning Environments

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Human Systems

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: Air Warfare Training Development Command; Live Virtual Constructive (CM-FNC)

OBJECTIVE: Develop, demonstrate, and validate mixed reality (MR) technology to improve training of maintenance procedures and troubleshooting skills for measured improvements in learning and transfer to workplace performance.

DESCRIPTION: Naval experts in ship maintenance are retiring, with no mechanism in place for transfer of knowledge or interactive training. Currently, the expertise for maintenance is held within the SMES’s and delivered aboard ship as on-the-job-training (OJT) and will be lost once these SME’s retire. This knowledge and skills will be captured in the cognitive task analysis(CTA) that is part of the design process for mixed reality applications. This knowledge and skills will be codified in the software via a functional description of the architecture for the mixed reality application. The results of the CTA will be a report that contains the functional description of software that drives the mixed reality application. Mixed reality offers an interactive way to capture, store, disseminate knowledge and train new skills without intensive instructor interaction or expensive on-the-job training. Successful use of MR technology, however, requires a pedagogy comprised of strategies that direct and optimize MR and virtual reality (VR) in training. To provide self-directed learning and training in interactive MR and VR environments, new pedagogical capabilities are needed: (1) to assess what students learn in these environments; (2) to offer feedback and practice of needed skills; (3) to assess rates of skill and knowledge acquisition; (4) to motivate students’ self-directed interaction behaviors; and (5) to obtain valid measures of training effectiveness expressed in terms of job performance.