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

6. Adeeb, M. A., et. al. (2012). An Inductive Link-Based Wireless Power Transfer System for Biomedical Applications. Active and Passive Electronic Components. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/apec/2012/879294/-

KEYWORDS: Inductive link; ultra-short range; communication; power; MIL-STD-1760; LAU-61

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

N171-007

TITLE: Oxygen Mask Development to Improve and Facilitate Mask Discipline

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Human Systems

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMA-265, F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet

OBJECTIVE: Develop solution to improve mask discipline and improve oxygen mask comfort.

DESCRIPTION: Recently, issues with physiological events (e.g. hypoxia symptoms) have become apparent in several aviation platforms including the F/A-18, JSF, T-45, and EA-18G. Although solutions in the oxygen system have been identified to resolve these issues, mask discipline remains an aeromedical root cause that cannot be addressed solely through training as would be the traditional solution. Mask discipline is the propensity of a pilot to don their oxygen mask and keep it sealed for the duration of the flight, which may last for as long as 6 hours. Current mission requirements direct aircrew to properly wear their oxygen mask for the duration of their flight from taxiing to the runway for take-off until taxiing off the runway after landing.

Investigate root causes of oxygen mask discomfort and develop solutions that can seamlessly integrate into existing oxygen systems to resolve common complaints of pilots that lead to mask removal, including: airflow passing through the seals of the mask around the nose, pressure points around the face due to inconsistent fit, difficulty in attaching and detaching mask when eating or drinking, discomfort during long flights, mask sliding around face during high-G maneuvering, and removing the mask when trailing other aircraft in order to use the On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) air to clear their eyes. The solution should consider comfort for the pilot, the range of facial anthropometric parameters, compatibility with current helmet and communications system, and interoperability among air platforms that currently utilize the OBOGS system including: F/A-18, JSF/F-35, T-6, and T-45 [Ref 1]. All options, including but not limited to, a new mask design, a mask insert tailored to the individual, a new fitting technique, or a new material for the mask will be considered.

Considerations for system integration should include [Ref 1]:
• On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS)
• Emergency Oxygen System (EOS)
• Regulated Integrated Terminal Block (RITB)
• Pre-coolers
• Pneumatic valves and temperature/pressure sensors
• Water separators and inlet filters
• Aircraft sear-pilot interface connectors

Other considerations regarding integration into existing helmet systems (e.g., HGU-68/P, HGU-55A/P) and communication systems (e.g., M-87 dynamic microphone) should be addressed as well.

Further opportunities for innovation include the integration of sensor capability to assess and record respiration rate or other physiological processes; gas composition; and/or other novel sensor technology.

PHASE I: Develop and demonstrate the feasibility of one or more model / solution options that demonstrate improved adherence to mask discipline standards (i.e., taxiing to the runway for take-off until taxiing off the runway after landing). Performance metrics might include total time on mask, total time on mask before discomfort, reduction in “hot spots” (e.g., pinches, pressure in specific spots), qualitative assessment of comfort, or other metrics identified by the performer [Ref 2]. Provide documentation that demonstrates the suitability of the design for representative platforms and mission environments. Additional equipment specific documentation will be provided to Phase I performers as government furnished information (GFI). A proof of concept demo should be performed along with a Technology Readiness Level (TRL)/Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) assessment.

PHASE II: Develop the oxygen mask model / solution into a prototype, perform further testing in a relevant environment, and demonstrate performance in an actual flight environment. Demonstration in an actual flight environment is preferred; however, a demonstration in a realistic simulated environment will suffice. When designing a simulated test environment, the highly-dynamic flight environment should be considered. Efforts will be made to provide an in-flight test environment via the participating Program Manager, Air (PMA). Tests during Phase II should demonstrate the superiority of the new model / solution compared to the current oxygen masks and methods. Feasibility of aircraft/fighter integration should also be demonstrated. TRL/MRL assessment should be updated.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Refine oxygen mask solution to final production configuration. Develop manufacturing and logistics process in conjunction with PMA and other government manufacturing engineers and logisticians. Private Sector Commercial Potential: Oxygen mask use for flight is predominantly within the realm of military aviation and not as common in the private sector. Recent private sector missions beginning to enter the realm of space flight, however, would likely have interest in this technology. Furthermore, understanding fit and comfort in regards to face masks would prove useful in other industries, such as mining and firefighting.

REFERENCES:

1. Life Support Systems (Honeywell) On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS). https://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/myaerospacecatalog-documents/Defense_Brochures-documents/Life_Support_Systems.pdf

2. Meyer, J. P., Hery, M., Herrault, J., Hubert, G., François, D., Hecht, G., & Villa, M., (1997). Field study of subjective assessment of negative pressure half-masks. Influence of the work conditions on comfort and efficiency. Applied Ergonomics, 28(5), 331-338. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687097000070-

KEYWORDS: oxygen mask; wearable technology; ergonomics; physiological sensors; hypoxia; comfort

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

N171-008

TITLE: Novel Ventilating Fabric Dry Suit Technology

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Human Systems, Materials/Processes

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMA-202 Aircrew Systems

OBJECTIVE: Develop a fabric or fabric technology for a dry suit that allows sufficient air exchange for evaporative cooling of the wearer’s skin, but that passively and immediately reaches and holds a watertight state.

DESCRIPTION: Naval aviators wear dry suits, also called anti-exposure or immersion suits, during routine flights over cold water as a contingency for emergency ditching or ejection. Dry suits keep the immersed aviator alive by keeping cold water away from the skin [Ref 1]. Some dry suits are designed to be worn as outer garments and are flame resistant, while others are designed to be worn as undergarments and worn under flame-resistant outer garments. Current dry suit fabric technologies block water intrusion but also block air exchange, resulting in a hot and sweaty aviator whose ability to fly a mission is degraded. Further, a sweaty aviator is at much greater risk of hypothermia in a cold-water ditching because the sweat vapor condenses into water which conductively robs the body of its heat and convectively by degrading insulation of thermal underwear [Refs 2, 3, 4]. A fabric technology that allows high air exchange yet passively self-seals to a watertight state when wetted, either as a ventilating panel in a dry suit or as the dry suit fabric itself, would increase endurance of the military aviator operating over cold water in routine ambient conditions, and survivability in a cold water ditching.

Current state-of-the-art fabrics include but are not limited to long staple cotton, selectively-permeable laminates [Ref 6], closed-cell foam rubber [Ref 7] and impermeable coated cloth which exacerbate heat and sweat production by eliminating any opportunity for evaporative cooling through vapor diffusion. Additional considerations include vents, plugs and valves since openings in the dry suit are also state-of-the-art techniques for allowing air exchange. Vents relying upon watertight zippers are not automatic, requiring the user to find and close a potentially stiff zipper at a time when he/she will not have the dexterity, presence of mind, or opportunity to do so. Hook and pile fastener tapes (e.g., Velcro®) are also not self-sealing and thus far, are not watertight. Plugs that are porous until wetted (e.g., corks) are self-sealing but often allow only marginal air exchange and too bulky for apparel applications. One-way valves (e.g., exhaust ports on diving suits) using rubber diaphragms are self-sealing, but are currently designed for the water-to-air pressure differential and thus will not work for the body air-to-ambient air gradient.

Ultimately, the desired end capability is a commercially producible fabric technology that allows sufficient air exchange for evaporative cooling of the wearer’s skin but that passively and immediately reaches and holds a watertight state for 6 hours upon wetting. The fabric technology must be compatible with existing dry suit cut/sew, welding, and adhesive processes [Ref 8]. The fabric technology as part of a dry suit system must be suitable for use and maintenance in the operational military environment. The wet and dry states must remain thin and flexible to enable aircrew wearing constricting gear such as body armor, body harnesses, and anti-g suits to perform mission and survival tasks. As the fabric technology is developed, the fabric technology in both flat and seam-sealed states will be expected to meet performance requirements incrementally by phase as described below. Detailed performance requirements are provided below with target metrics.

a. Fabric weight, per ASTM D 3776: <9.0 oz/yd2

Any textile components used to develop the resulting material must be entirely manufactured in the United States of constituents wholly grown and/or produced in the United States.

PHASE I: Design and demonstrate feasibility for the development of a dry suit ventilating fabric concept to meet the requirements stated in the Description section. Resulting concepts should include a background section with explanatory figures describing the basic principles of the proposed dry suit ventilating fabric technology concept, publications or other references that outline the application being considered, and a 3-tiered work breakdown structure with Gantt of Phase I design activities. Demonstrate feasibility for the development of the fabric with an analysis that supports the technology concept. It is strongly desired that the offeror provide experimental work that demonstrates that the fabric technology allows substantial air exchange in ambient conditions and exclusion of water in the wetted condition within 20 seconds or less.

PHASE II: Develop the dry suit ventilating fabric technology. Provide a detailed, 3-tiered work breakdown structure with a Gantt chart of Phase III activities. Perform a laboratory demonstration of three full-scale seam-sealed prototypes. Each should be submersed in turbulent 45 degree F water and the amount of leakage measured after 10 seconds, 1 minute, 1 hour, 2 hours, and 6 hours by comparing the pre-wet and post-wet weight readings.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Finalize developed dry suit ventilating fabric technology. Develop and assist with required qualification testing. Develop source data for training military operators and maintainers on use and support. Develop a plan to market technology to commercial sector. Private Sector Commercial Potential: The market for immersion dry suit fabric technology that allows air exchange when dry but is immediately watertight when wet includes not just DoD and US Coast Guard aviators but also oceanographic scientists, seafood industry watermen, and cold-season recreational canoeists and kayakers.

REFERENCES:

1. Transport Canada. “Key physical issues in the design and testing of immersion suits (Chapter 3) in Survival In Cold Waters: Staying Alive.” Survival in Cold waters: Staying Alive, Technical Publication TP13822, Jan 2003. Retrieved from http://www.tc.gc

2. Hall, J.F. & Polte J. “Effect of water content and compression on thermal insulation of clothing.” WADC Technical Report 55-356, Oct 1955. Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0099563.

3. Allan, JR, Higenbottam, C, & Redman, J. “The effect of leakage on the insulation provided by immersion protection clothing.” Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 1107-1009, Nov 1985. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4074267.

4. Light, I.M., Avery, A, & Grieve, AM. “Immersion suit insulation: the effect of dampening on survival estimates.” Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 964-969 Oct 1987. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3675468.

5. Ventile Fabrics®. Ventile specification. Retrieved from http://www.ventile.co.uk/ on 3 August 2016.

6. Department of Defense. Detail Specification Cloth, Waterproof, Flame Resistant, Moisture Vapor Permeable MIL-DTL-32149A. Jan 2007. Available at http://www.techstreet.com/standards/mil-mil-dtl-32149a?product_id=1444085.

7. Tran, A. and Reeps, S. “Wet Suit vs. Dry Suit.” Approach 32(4):2-8. Oct 1986. Retrieved from https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023861423;view=1up;seq=5.

8. Department of the Navy. Coveralls, Flyers', Anti-Exposure, CWU-74/P, CWU-86/P, and CWU-87/P, MIL-DTL-85633D. January 2016. Available athttp://www.techstreet.com/standards/mil-mil-dtl-85633c?product_id=1447701self-sealing; watertight; waterproof; ventilation; breathable; air exchange; dry suit; anti-exposure suit; immersion suit; survival suit-

KEYWORDS: self-sealing; watertight; waterproof; ventilation; breathable; air exchange; dry suit; anti-exposure suit; immersion suit; survival suit

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

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

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMA 251 Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment

OBJECTIVE: Develop a rugged touchscreen which can be reconfigured into a physical button that can be seen and/or felt, is capable of providing tactile, haptic, or some other method of positive indication feedback to a user and is capable of surviving the harsh environment on a US Navy Aircraft Carrier Flight Deck.

DESCRIPTION: Touchscreens provide the ability to reconfigure user interfaces that has been impossible and could not be achieved using traditional physical mediums such as push buttons. Interacting with a system untethered to physical input peripherals provides freedom to the user and flexibility to the system. There however remain challenges to overcome, regarding limitations to human interaction with touchscreens. Presently, the look, feel, operation, and feedback of physical switches and buttons is completely disparate from that of buttons implemented in software on touchscreens. Software buttons on touch screens can be implemented in any shape, size, and location on the display yet lacks key features that make traditional toggle switches and pushbuttons more user-friendly. Innovation is needed to bridge the gap between these two disparate approaches.

To summarize the limits of the current state of the art, physical pushbuttons are excellent at providing positive indication feedback but are often difficult and costly to reprogram in system function and display. Touchscreens provide nearly infinite options of how the button can be displayed (size, shape, icon, text, etc.) but often provide the user very limited feedback when the button has been selected. Consumer electronics such as mobile phones often provide a light vibration as feedback when pressed which would be nearly impossible to detect in a harsh environment such as a carrier flight deck during operations or when the user is wearing gloves.

Bringing elements of the ability to reconfigure a touchscreen into the realm of physical buttons, bringing elements of the look and feel of physical buttons to touch screens, or a completely novel hybrid approach would all require creative and innovative approaches. The lack of a physical button on a touchscreen requires more attention from the user to navigate the input, shifting focus from the current task. While this is acceptable for many civilian applications, a lack of focus while operating a critical safety item onboard a ship can lead to a mishap. The closest thing to a solution that has been observed in literature search is a fluid-filled membrane that can be pressurized to provide a slight raised feature resembling a blister or bubble at the pre-determined physical locations of where software buttons have been implemented on a touchscreen. Feedback of a button press can sometimes be indicated by a sound or vibration of the device hosting the application, but the sound can often be heard only in quiet environments and the vibration is rarely strong enough to provide indication to a gloved user.

The Navy desires rugged programmable reconfigurable buttons integrated into touchscreen displays, activated with a physical pressing motion, and capable of providing positive indication feedback (tactile or haptic preferred) in the ways described for physical push buttons in MIL-STD-1472G. The technology would need to be capable of operating on a US Navy Aircraft Carrier meeting Flight Deck requirements for environmental and electromagnetic interference as outlined in MIL-STD-810G and MIL-STD-461F, respectively. It is also desired that this new technology be capable of integrating with any display system, while also being more cost effective than traditional buttons.

One of the candidate systems for insertion of this technology is the Landing Signal Officer Display System (LSODS). It presently uses 16 physical buttons that are reprogrammable in system function and displayed text and cost about $2,800 each. This programmable button in LSODS uses antiquated technology and requires adapters to interface to the system introducing added points of failure. A rugged programmable touchscreen button would reduce the necessary hardware/software to support the needed function and could reduce the Total Owner Costs for software development, hardware, and logistical support.

PHASE I: Demonstrate feasibility of a conceptual design of a reconfigurable touchscreen button module as part of a computer input device that can be attached as a peripheral Prove the feasibility of meeting the stated requirements for positive indication feedback through analysis and lab demonstrations. Identify specific strategies for meeting performance as outlined in MIL-STD-1472G and reliability goals.

PHASE II: Develop and demonstrate prototype performance of the computer input device including limits of activation such as maximum push force and effectiveness of feedback. Interfacing with the prototype button should be well-documented and understood so the evaluation team can analyze for tech insertion into LSODS and other systems. Provide an estimate of cost including manufacturing. Provide a failure analysis, service life estimate, and assessment of meeting Flight Deck requirements.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Further develop a complete system architecture of the computer input device optimized for a shipboard application including required environmental qualification and shock testing. Test prototype system to verify requirements established by NAVAIR and provide production units. Private Sector Commercial Potential: Uses in commercial cell phone, tablet, and PC display technology.

REFERENCES:

1. Department of Defense. MIL-STD-1472G, Department of Defense Design Criteria Standard: Human Engineering. 11 January 2012. Retrieved from http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1400-1499/MIL-STD-1472G_39997/

2. Department of Defense. MIL-STD-810G, Department of Defense Test Method Standard: Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests. 31 October 2008. Retrieved from http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/MIL-STD-810G_12306/

3. Department of Defense. MIL-STD-461F, Military Standard: Electromagnetic Interference Characteristics Requirements for Equipment. December 2007. Retrieved from http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0300-0499/MIL-STD-461_8678/-

KEYWORDS: Touchscreen; ruggedization; positive indication feedback; button; reconfigurable; Information Systems

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

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics, Materials/Processes, Sensors

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMA 264 AIR ASW SYSTEMS Program Office

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: Demonstrate the capabilities and benefits of applying state of the art additive manufacturing (AM) for sonobuoy components by developing novel production methods and utilizing emergent materials technology with the intention to reduce production costs, maintain current reliability specifications, and obtain equivalent or improved performance when compared to current production sonobuoy components.

DESCRIPTION: There is a need for rapid prototyping and cost effective (10% reduction of the current $800 per unit) manufacturing of sonobuoys, from small quantity (hundreds) special purpose and prototype sonobuoys, to high volume (thousands) and high run-rate sonobuoys. Utilizing AM technology, also known as 3D printing, for rapid prototyping and manufacturing of low quantity sonobuoys has the potential to be a cost effective approach that has the possibility to be extended to full rate production as speed and cost effectiveness of the technology matures. The Navy desires to understand the current state of the art for AM technology as it relates to sonobuoys, how and when it will be financially beneficial to support full volume high rate production, and the novel production methods and materials that must be employed in order to transition the technology. Emphasis should be placed on new materials with respect to cost reduction (both production and Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) for tooling), sustainability/biodegradability (waste reduction, reduced need for large dedicated tools, etc.), and manufacturing process improvements such as (but not limited to) AM. The proposer should consider this effort as the innovative advancement of developing novel AM technology for sonobuoys production that meets the goals stated below.