BAA Topics of Interest 022 R23.pdf

BAA FAA Aviation Research 2020 Solicitation Number: 692M15-20-R-00004 R22

Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center Atlantic City International Airport

Atlantic City, NJ

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

AVIATION RESEARCH 2020

TOPICS OF INTEREST

July 29, 2024

The following is a list of BAA Topics of Interest of Aviation Research required by the FAA Technical Center. This BAA is an open request for white paper submittals at any time until the expiration of the BAA or until the Topic is removed. White papers and proposals will be assessed according to the instructions and criteria contained in the BAA. Offerors are invited to submit brief descriptive white papers relevant to a Topic or Topics described within the BAA. Each Topic identifies a Technical POC to whom questions relating to a particular Topic must be directed.

AVIATION RESEARCH AIRPORT PAVEMENTS (ARAP)

Topic Number: ARAP0001:

Develop Measurements, Specifications, and Guidance for Multiple Bump Events of Airport Pavement Roughness to Supplement the Existing Pavement Surface Boeing Bump Index (BBI)

Technical POCs: Richard Ji; Richard.Ji@faa.gov Murphy Flynn; Murphy.Flynn@faa.gov

Copy: 9-ACT-AAQ-600-BAA@faa.gov

Background:

Pavement smoothness is an important consideration for airport pavement. It provides the comfort and safety of aircraft ground operations. Therefore, when pavements are put into service, the FAA recommends that airports periodically check in service roughness because the surface characteristics of a pavement affect aircraft operation cost and the riding quality.

It is because of these considerations, that technical procedures and evaluation for pavement roughness is provided in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5380-9 Guidelines and procedures for measuring airfield pavement roughness, which references the Boeing Bump Index (BBI) for evaluation. The BBI was developed solely to identify and quantify single event in-service runway pavement roughness from acceptable, excessive to unacceptable conditions.

However, the BBI does not show roughness issues caused by continuous events, which reflects the interaction between the pavement and the aircraft. Without considering it, the single bump cannot reflect the real ride quality felt by the user when the aircraft, such as when it is passing by multiple bumps caused by surface distresses, the frost heave, and runway wavelengths. The consideration of a coupled system with the runway and the aircraft in a multiple vertical bump events can reflect the real responses of the aircraft and make the airport operators correctly protect the aircraft safety and aircraft structural fatigue.

The outcome from this research effort will provide airport operators with multiple bump event surface evaluation procedures for in-service pavement roughness, as well as technical specifications to consistently conduct safe, reliable, and effective airport surface roughness inspections.

Purpose:

Develop methodologies and procedures for conducting multiple bump event based airport pavement surface roughness inspections, as well as technical criteria for acceptable, excessive, and unacceptable pavement roughness.

Requirements:

The FAA would like proposals to address the specific areas listed below; however, proposals are not limited to these requirements.

Determine if an alternative method or index for the calculation of the roughness of in-service airport pavement is possible or necessary considering both single and multiple event bumps.

Develop processes and procedures for analyzing multiple event bumps and develop recommended technical specifications (i.e. acceptable, excessive, and unacceptable surface roughness criteria).

Develop a software package that considers multiple event bumps and make it available for public use.

Period of Performance/ Rough Order of Magnitude: The Period of Performance (PoP)/Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) will be determined based on the projects proposed.

There are currently no set parameters for these elements.

Topic Number: ARAP0002: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAP0003: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAP0004: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAP0005: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAP0006: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAP0007:

Designing and Implementing an Embedded Acoustic Sensor System for Monitoring Subsurface Damage in Concrete Test Pavements at NAPTF

Technical POC: David Brill; David.Brill@faa.gov

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will construct a full-scale test of airport concrete pavement at the NAPTF, designated Construction Cycle 10 (CC10). This five-year test aims to observe the accumulation of structural damage within the concrete pavement, starting as small cracks at the slab or joint bottom and progressing to the surface due to traffic. The primary objective is to gain knowledge into the development of internal fatigue damage before it becomes evident at the surface. Hence, it is imperative to deploy a system of embedded sensors capable of detecting and monitoring internal concrete damage. The FAA has identified coda wave interferometry (CWI), an analysis of ultrasonic wave patterns in concrete, as the technology of choice. CWI analyzes the tail end of the signal (coda) for repeatable patterns sensitive to changes in structural properties, making it suitable for monitoring structural deterioration in concrete. Although CWI has been demonstrated in laboratory settings and used for structural health monitoring in European concrete bridge structures, its application in concrete airport pavements has not been tested.

The NAPTF, established in 1999, offers a unique facility for full-scale pavement testing under heavy aircraft traffic. With a rail-based test vehicle simulating aircraft up to 1.3 million pounds and a fully automated data acquisition system, NAPTF is crucial for developing and enhancing FAA procedures for airport pavement design. Test data informs FAA Advisory Circulars (AC) 150/5320-6G and 150/5335-5D, as well as the FAARFIELD computer program. More information is available at: https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/NAPTF.

The purpose of this Topic is to custom-design, produce, and install a system of in-pavement sensors and data collection system (DCS) at the NAPTF. The system should be capable of detecting and monitoring internal structural damage in the CC10 concrete test pavement using CWI principles.

The FAA would like white papers for designing, producing, installing, and analyzing a CWI-based instrumentation system for the NAPTF to address the specific research parameters listed below, however, submittals are not limited to these requirements:

The total concrete (Portland Cement Concrete) surface area for the research and testing is 310 × 52.5 ft, divided into 3 distinct test items of 90 ft in length, separated by short transition areas. The FAA recognizes the impracticality of instrumenting the entire test area and plans to instrument one representative slab within each test item, with a possible additional slab for control purposes. The instrumented slabs are 18 ft long × 17.5 ft wide, with thicknesses ranging from 13.5 to 15.5 inches. All slabs are plain concrete (no reinforcement) with doweled joints. The system must insonify (i.e., cover) the entire slab area and must be capable of localizing cracking or other structural damage within the slab that is not visible at the surface.

Systems should be capable of surviving the five-year life of the FAA Construction cycle as any sensors and in-pavement electronics will be inaccessible once installed.

Systems must be designed to avoid conflicts with other in-pavement sensors (e.g., strain gages, corner displacement sensors, thermocouples, etc.).

The DCS must be housed in a separate enclosure and function independently of the existing NAPTF DCS. DCS must be able to connect to the local NAPTF ethernet network. (The NAPTF network is an isolated system and cannot be accessed from the internet.)

Conduct research, testing, data analysis, and required maintenance during system installation, up to two years after installation to determine the feasibility of utilizing CWI to detect structural damage in airport concrete.

Period of Performance/Rough Order of Magnitude:

Efforts up to 3 years will be considered, with continued efforts based on FAA discretion, performance, and results. Annual funding, subject to availability, is anticipated for these efforts, with a Rough Order of Magnitude not to exceed $200,000.00 per project, per fiscal year for any awards under this announcement.

Topic Number: ARAP0008:

Design Model for Reflection Cracking in Airport Asphalt Overlays of Rigid Pavements

Technical POC: Dr. David Brill; David.Brill@faa.gov

Existing design guidance in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6G (Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation) is currently limited with respect to the control of reflective cracking in asphalt overlays. To rectify the lack of a validated design model for reflective cracking, the FAA is developing a new design procedure for hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlays on existing concrete pavements that explicitly considers reflective cracking as a failure mode. The validated model will be included in an updated version of the standard FAA thickness design program

FAARFIELD.

In previous research, the FAA developed a reflection crack prediction model that includes both repeated aircraft loads and environmental (temperature) cycles, and existing pavement conditions, as inputs to predict reflection crack growth in overlay pavements using a mixed-mode implementation of Paris’ Law. This mechanistic model has been developed as pseudo-code with the intention of integrating it into the existing FAARFIELD cumulative damage factor-based design procedure. Successful integration will depend on developing transfer functions to relate the mechanistic crack growth prediction (governed by Paris’ Law) to the condition of the affected pavement surface (measured in practice by pavement condition index, PCI). This effort will make maximum use of real-world airport condition data from field studies and from available airport pavement management databases such as FAA

PAVEAIR.

The FAA has conducted research at the National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF).

The NAPTF maintains a unique full-scale reflection cracking test rig, and to date seven (7) cycles of full-scale tests have been completed to acquire data on the formation and propagation reflection cracks under controlled cyclic loading. Data are available on the NAPTF webpage:

https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Airport-Pavement/National-Airport-Pavement-Test- Facility/Reflective-Cracking-Program. In addition, two outdoor reflection cracking test lanes have been installed at the National Airport Pavement Materials Research Center (NAPMRC) to collect long-term performance data on overlays subject to (a) controlled aircraft gear traffic;

and (b) natural temperature cycles without traffic. These data have been used to develop and validate the existing mechanistic models.

The purpose of this Topic is to find appropriate transfer functions that can relate mechanistic predictions of reflection crack growth to expected levels of reflection cracking distress on real-world airport pavements. Modifications to the existing developed models and codes may be considered if justified by new data or analysis. The result of this research will be a validated, mechanistic-empirical design model for reflection cracking in asphalt overlays, suitable for implementation in the FAA’s FAARFIELD software program.

The FAA would like white papers for research developing transfer functions relating mathematically predicted reflection crack growth to density and severity of observed reflection cracking distress on representative airport pavements. The exact form of transfer functions is not known at present and should be determined as part of this research. To the extent possible, representative airport pavement sections should consider a broad range of climate zones and airport categories (from large hub to general aviation), to maximize the applicability and generality of the resulting design procedures. White papers may consider the use of machine learning (ML) methods to obtain models that are neither under-determined nor over-determined based on the field data. White papers should address how the analysis will make best use of available field data including (a) FAA PAVEAIR Airport Pavement Management System (APMS) databases containing airport asphalt overlay on concrete (APC) sections; (b) other APC sections at an airport known to have reflection cracking issues, which the FAA ATRD has identified as a potential field study airport; (c) the experimental overlay sections constructed by the FAA ATRD Branch in 2019 and located at the William J. Hughes Technical Center (https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Airport-Pavement/Pavement-Design/Reflective- Cracking-Program/Reflective-Cracking-Outdoor). Sections manifesting reflection cracking distresses, as well those not currently manifesting such distress, are both of interest for calibrating the model. While the FAA will make available the above data, white papers may identify other suggested sources of field data.

The end product of the research should:

Plan for implementation of the overlay design model in FAARFIELD (i.e., it should work with the Visual Studio.NET programming environment).

Quantify reflection cracking density and severity using the PCI method following ASTM D5340-23 (and later versions), Standard Test Method for Airport Pavement Condition Index Surveys.

Propose failure criteria for overlay thickness design, i.e., levels of reflection cracking density and severity that constitute a failed section in practice.

This topic combines aspects of fracture mechanics modeling (in particular fracture mechanics of viscoelastic, time-temperature dependent materials, i.e., asphalt) with the principles and practice of airport pavement design and evaluation. The results of the research will be used by FAA to develop/modify pavement design standards (Advisory Circulars) and standard design software, including the software program FAARFIELD.

Efforts lasting up to 3 years will be considered. Continued efforts at the completion of each milestone or deliverable are at the discretion of the FAA, based on performance and results.

These efforts are anticipated to be funded annually, subject to availability of funds. ROM for this research is expected not to exceed $200,000.00 per project, per fiscal year for any awards made under this announcement.

Topic Number: ARAP0009:

Engineering Analysis of Field Monitoring and Instrumentation Data

Technical POC: Daniel Offenbacker; Daniel.I.Offenbacker@faa.gov

Since 1992, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has had an ongoing initiative to evaluate pavement responses and monitor pavement performance of airport pavements. Data collected during this time includes responses from instrumentation in static (nontraffic-related) and dynamic (traffic-related) intervals, characterization testing of pavement layers using laboratory and field tests, and pavement condition data via Pavement Condition Index (PCI) assessments.

Ultimately, the goal of this is initiative is to directly support any improvements to airport pavement design, construction, and/or management practices via FAA Advisory Circulars (AC) 150/5320-6G, 150/5370-10H, and 150/5335-5D.

ATR has conducted this research at over ten (10) field projects across the United States. Some of the findings have resulted in:

Development and validation of FAA’s three-dimensional finite element software for design of rigid airport pavements.

Load transfer in undoweled Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements may be sufficient when thick pavements are used leading to more cost-effective construction strategies.

Study of shoving mechanism in flexible pavements along high-speed exits due to delamination in asphalt overlays leading to potential considerations when designing and constructing high-speed exits.

More information on the research findings is available at:

https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Airport-Pavement.

Purpose:

The purpose of this Topic is to solicit white papers that seek to (i) utilize collected field data to improve airport pavement design, construction, or management strategies or (ii) research innovative technologies and methods that better facilitate remote monitoring of airport pavement responses. Offerors are welcome to submit multiple white papers if desired.

Requirements:

The FAA would like to address the specific areas listed below; however, white papers are not limited to these requirements. Innovative ideas are welcome and encouraged.

Assess impacts of climate, aircraft loading, and material testing on pavement responses received from instrumentation.

Apply artificial intelligence/machine learning to improve pavement-related field data collection, interpretation, or evaluation.

Develop digital simulation(s) to predict pavement behavior and performance.

Investigate emerging areas in the fields of pavement instrumentation, signal processing, and data analysis.

Characterize airport pavement materials using collected field samples or in-situ test data Evaluate long-term performance of airport pavements using collected Pavement Condition index data.

Research innovative methods of remote data collection systems and network communications.

Period of Performance/Rough Order of Magnitude:

Efforts lasting up to 2 years will be considered. Continued efforts at the completion of each milestone or deliverable are at the discretion of the FAA, based on performance and results.

These efforts are anticipated to be funded annually, subject to availability of funds. ROM for this research is expected not to exceed $150,000.00 per project, per fiscal year for any awards made under this announcement.

Topic Number: ARAP0010:

Rational Overload Criteria for Airport Pavements in the ACR/PCR Method

Technical POC: Dr. David Brill; David.Brill@faa.gov

The Aircraft Classification Rating/Pavement Classification Rating (ACR/PCR) method is used throughout the world as a standard method of reporting airport pavement strength (see International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Volume I – Aerodrome Design and Operations). ICAO Doc 9157, Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 3 – Pavements, Third Edition, 2022, gives details of the method. The Pavement Classification Rating (PCR) is a number expressing the bearing strength of a pavement for “unrestricted” operations. In general, aircraft with an Aircraft Classification Rating (ACR) less than or equal to the PCR can operate on the pavement without weight restrictions, while aircraft with higher ACR are either excluded or subject to operating weight restrictions. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) adopted the ACR/PCR method in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5335-5D and requires Part 139 airports to report runway PCR on Airport Master Records.

Annex 14 allows for occasional overload operations based on the published PCR. The general guidance is that occasional overload operations up to ACR 10 percent higher than PCR are allowed for both flexible and rigid pavements if they do not exceed approximately 5 percent of total annual operations (exclusive of light aircraft). However, these are “suggested” criteria;

Annex 14 also provides for a detailed engineering analysis that may justify higher overloads.

The existing 10 percent overload criterion does not have a strong technical or empirical justification and existing research suggests it is highly conservative.

The FAA has conducted research at the National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF) in support of the ICAO overload criteria for both rigid and flexible pavements. The full-scale tests undertaken to date are:

Construction Cycle 7 (CC7). Flexible overload test items LFC1-6 South. This series of full-scale traffic tests located the possible overload level associated with permanent structural damage between 50-90 percent above the Pavement Classification Number (PCN). It also suggested a possible criterion based on computed subgrade strain. Data are available on the NAPTF webpage: https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Airport-Pavement/Pavement-Test- Facilities/Construction-Cycles/Construction-Cycle-7.

Construction Cycle 8 (CC8) Phase 1. Rigid overload test item. This test represented a relatively thin rigid airport pavement on an aggregate base subject to heavy aircraft loading Data are available on the NAPTF webpage: https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Airport- Pavement/Pavement-Test-Facilities/Construction-Cycles/Construction-Cycle-8.

Construction Cycle 9 (CC9). Flexible overload test items LFC5-N/S. This test was a follow-on to the CC7 test and represented a flexible pavement subject to a series of overloads at 75 percent above PCR. Data are available on the NAPTF webpage:

https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Airport-Pavement/Pavement-Test-Facilities/Construction- Cycles/Construction-Cycle-9.

The FAA will entertain white papers for research ideas on developing rational engineering criteria for allowable occasional overloads on airport pavements. Overloads on airport pavements are defined in accordance with the ACR/PCR method as given in ICAO Annex 14, Vol. 1 and related documents, and FAA AC 150/5335-5D. White papers should consider how to make best use of the extensive results and data from the NAPTF full-scale overload tests described above. White papers may address overloads on flexible or rigid airport pavements, or both.

Allowable overload criteria should be based on an analysis using engineering quantities that can reasonably be measured in the field or calculated from the known properties of a given pavement. Overload criteria should be versatile enough to accommodate the range of expected failure modes that can result from overloading. Ideally, the overload criteria should reflect the actual mechanism(s) of pavement failure. However, this may not always be possible due to the simplified models adopted in the ACR/PCR method. For rigid pavements, the assumed failure mode in ACR/PCR is bottom-up slab cracking. For flexible pavements, structural failure is assumed to be related to excessive vertical strain at the top of the subgrade, and asphalt material fatigue is neglected. In the CC9 flexible full-scale test, the actual failure of both overloaded and non-overloaded flexible test items was manifested in extensive surface cracking rather than the deep rutting and surface upheaval associated with classic subgrade failure, although similar test items under similar loads in CC7 did exhibit the classic failure.

The results of the research will be used by FAA to develop/modify applicable Advisory Circulars and standard design and evaluation software, specifically the software program

FAARFIELD.

Efforts lasting up to 3 years will be considered. Continued efforts at the completion of each milestone or deliverable are at the discretion of the FAA, based on performance and results.

These efforts are anticipated to be funded annually, subject to availability of funds. ROM for

Topic Number: ARAP0011:

Scale Effects in Reflective Cracking: Table-Scale versus Full-Scale Overlay Tests

Technical POCs: Richard Ji; Richard.Ji@faa.gov David Brill; David.Brill@faa.gov

Reflection cracking occurs when cracks or joints in an existing pavement reflect through to the surface of an overlay under the influence of repeated loads (either vehicle loads or temperature cycles, or a combination). In airport pavements, reflection cracking increases the risk of foreign object damage (FOD) and admits surface water to underlying layers, accelerating structural damage. Although reflection cracking is a significant distress for airport pavement overlays, it has not traditionally been included in standard pavement thickness design models due to its complexity and the long computational times needed to predict reflection crack growth accurately.

To remedy the lack of an appropriate design model for reflection cracking, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducts research. At the National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF), the FAA operates a full-scale reflection cracking test rig, which consists of two jointed, hydronically cooled concrete slabs, with an asphalt overlay bridging the joint. Hydraulic actuators mechanically open and close the joint, simulating the natural temperature cycles that drive reflection cracks. The NAPTF rig may be understood as a full-scale version of laboratory-scale overlay testing equipment, such as the Texas Overlay Tester (TOT). Both types of equipment are used to simulate reflection cracking failures for comparison of different materials and to derive the material constants for predictive equations (e.g., Paris’ Law). The full-scale rig has the advantage that it is inherently free of size/scale effects, yet it is impractical to use for routine characterization of fracture mechanical properties such as the energy release rate (ERR).

There are multiple sources of size effects in fracture-mechanical modeling (see e.g., Bažant and Planas, Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials, CRC, 1998.).

These include the statistical size effect (due to randomness of material properties and the higher likelihood of capturing a flaw in a large sample), the fracture mechanics size effect, and the heat diffusion size effect. The latter is important in this case due to the temperature-dependent and viscoelastic nature of asphalt. The FAA seeks to better understand the role of size and scale effects in relating results from the NAPTF test rig to laboratory characterization tests. The FAA previously developed an analytic model in two dimensions to obtain ERR for the full-scale NAPTF reflection cracking rig (Report DOT/FAA/TC-20/17, Reflective Crack Propagation Model, 2020; Report DOT/FAA/TC-22/4, Reflective Crack Propagation Model—Part 2: Mode

II, 2022).

Develop a dimensionless analytical model predicting ERR for a full range of dimensions from laboratory (tabletop) scale to full scale. With such a model, a separate finite element mesh for each scale will not be needed, which greatly reduces computation time.

Requirements:

White papers are needed for developing a dimensionless analytical model to predict ERR for reflection crack growth in airport asphalt overlay pavements. The model should be usable over a range of dimensions from laboratory scale (represented by the TOT) to full scale. The FAA previously developed an analytic model of reflection cracking in two dimensions. The existing model has certain limitations, described in the references above. It assumes plain strain under prescribed displacements, making it suitable for analysis of the NAPTF reflection cracking rig (which operates under displacement control). The FAA is seeking research ideas to:

extend the model to three dimensions;

include mixed mode and mode 3 (out-of-plane shear) fracture;

understand and incorporate various scale effects that may not be captured in the current formulation;

obtain ERR for various load conditions (either prescribed loading or prescribed displacement) at any scale.

White papers are not necessarily limited to the above bullets. Numerical (e.g., finite element) and mathematical closed-form modeling approaches will both be considered. Machine learning approaches are also strongly encouraged. In whatever form proposed, models should efficiently capture the viscoelastic (time- and temperature-dependent) behavior of asphalt materials.

Period of Performance/Rough Order of Magnitude:

Efforts lasting up to 3 years will be considered. Continued efforts at the completion of each milestone or deliverable are at the discretion of the FAA, based on performance and results.

These efforts are anticipated to be funded annually, subject to availability of funds. ROM for

AVIATION RESEARCH AIRPORT SAFETY (ARAS)

Topic Number: ARAS0001: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAS0002:

Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Replacement

Technical POC: Keith Bagot; Keith.Bagot@faa.gov

Title 14 CFR Part 139 (Part 139) provides regulations to airports that have scheduled operations with aircraft of 9 to 31 seats or scheduled and unscheduled operations with air carrier aircraft holding more than 30 seats. Per Part 139, certificated airports must have a certain amount of extinguishing agents on hand dependent on the aircraft activity at the airport. The main agent that Part 139 calls for airport to have is aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF). Guidance for the types of foams used at airports can be found in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5210-6D, “Aircraft Fire Extinguishing Agents”.

Over the years, there has been a growing concern about the potential health and environmental impacts of AFFF used by Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Departments at airports and surrounding communities. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS, are a toxic group of chemicals that are found in AFFF concentrates used at airports.

Specifically of concern are perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Both PFOS and PFOA are considered persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic by United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Though foam manufactures have worked diligently to reduce presence of PFAS in their AFFF concentrates, the environmental concerns still linger. There are also several other PFAS compounds in the current AFFF formulas whose environmental and health hazards are not yet known. Recently new AFFF formulas known as Fluorine-Free Foams (FFFs) have shown potential to replace current AFFFs however; they have not been shown to have equivalent fire extinguishing capabilities.

Additionally, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 enacted in October 12, 2018 stated:

Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator, using the latest version of National Fire Protection Association 403, ‘‘Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Services at Airports’’, and in coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, aircraft manufacturers and airports, shall not require the use of fluorinated chemicals to meet the performance standards referenced in chapter 6 of AC No: 150/5210–6D and acceptable under 139.319(l) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

For these reasons, the FAA’s Airport Technology Research and Development Branch (ATRD) was tasked by the FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards with evaluating FFFs and aide in determining performance standards for FFFs to be used at airport. The FAA Technical Center broke ground on a new research facility in November 2018 with the primary focus on AFFF alternatives research testing and other ARFF technologies. Construction of this facility was completed in October 2019. One of the primary function of this facility is to find alternative firefighting agents that are environmentally friendly, while providing the same level of safety currently offered by MIL-PRF-24385 AFFF.

To identify potential fluorine-free firefighting agent candidates that could replace current AFFF used at airports.

The FAA would like white papers to address the specific areas listed below; however, Offerors are not limited to these requirements.

Foams should meet standards found in MIL-PFR-24385 Foams must have no trace of PFOS, PFOA, or any other Fluorine content Foams must not contain any chemicals found in the EPA’s List of Emergent

Contaminants

The FAA’s fire test facility can be used to evaluate the fire extinguishment capabilities of the foams and can be part of the proposal.

All proposed efforts should be properly documented in a detailed project plan.

The PoP/ROM will be determined based on the projects proposed. There are currently no set parameters for these elements.

Topic Number: ARAS0003: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAS0004: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAS0005: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAS0006: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAS0007: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAS0008: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAS0009:

Airport Unmanned Aircraft System(s) (UAS) Detection and Mitigation Research Program

Technical POC: Jim Patterson; Jim.Patterson@faa.gov

Consistent with Section 383 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-254, Oct. 5, 2018), Airport safety and airspace hazard mitigation and enforcement, the FAA is launching an effort to test and evaluate technologies and systems that detect and/or mitigate potential aviation safety risks posed by unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)1 operations in the airport environment.

Section 383(a) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 created a new § 44810 in Title 49 U.S.C.

Section 44810(a) requires the FAA Administrator to work with the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and the heads of other relevant federal departments and agencies to ensure that technologies or systems that are developed, tested, or deployed by federal departments and agencies to detect and mitigate potential risks posed by errant or hostile UAS operations do not adversely impact or interfere with safe airport operations, navigation, air traffic services, or the safe and efficient operation of the National Airspace System (NAS).

In addition, § 44810(b) requires the FAA to develop a plan for the certification, permitting, authorizing or allowing of UAS detection and mitigation systems in the NAS. Section 44810(b) requires the FAA to take certain actions as part of or potentially informing the plan, including convening an Aviation Rulemaking Committee. Further, § 44810(c) requires the FAA to test and evaluate technologies/systems that detect and/or mitigate risks posed by UAS at five airports and § 44810(d) directs the FAA to use detection and mitigation systems to detect and mitigate the unauthorized operation of an unmanned aircraft that poses a risk to aviation safety in the course of the required testing and evaluation.2

As part of this program, the FAA has issued Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Topic Number ARAS0009 to solicit interest from manufacturers, vendors, and integrators of UAS detection and/or mitigation technologies/systems.

The purpose of this Topic is to identify eligible manufacturers, vendors, and integrators of UAS detection and/or mitigation technologies and/or systems in support of the FAA’s Airport UAS Detection and Mitigation Research Program, which is being carried out pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 44810(c)-(d). For purposes of this research program:

1 See 49 U.S.C. § 44801(12) for definition of UAS.

2 The FAA was expressly exempted from various federal laws that would otherwise present legal implications associated with UAS detection and mitigation activities. See 49 U.S.C. § 44810(g). The authority conferred in § 44810(g) is limited to the testing and evaluation of UAS detection and/or mitigation technologies/systems by the FAA at five airports. This authority cannot be delegated.

1) UAS detection system refers to a system or device capable of lawfully and safely detecting, identifying, monitoring, or tracking an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system. UAS detection systems may be integrated into or be linked to counter-UAS3 systems, but, themselves, do not provide the capability to disable, disrupt, seize control, or otherwise directly interfere with UAS operations.

2) Mitigation refers to actions taken to deter, prevent, respond to, and minimize the immediate consequences of safety and security threats posed by certain UAS operations.

Mitigation may be conducted using counter-UAS and UAS detection systems, or by using other means, including efforts not reliant on these technical systems.

The FAA has a requirement to test and evaluate technologies/systems that have the ability to detect and/or mitigate UAS in the airport environment. It is important to note that the FAA will not be comparing or ranking vendors, nor is it developing a list of approved vendors as part of this research program. The FAA will be collecting data on UAS detection and mitigation capabilities and the associated impacts of these systems/technologies on the safe and efficient operation of the NAS in order to inform the additional activities required under 49 U.S.C.

§ 44810.

The FAA is seeking the submission of white papers to address the specific areas listed below;

however, submittals are not limited to these requirements:

1) UAS Detection Testing - Conduct testing and evaluation of technologies/systems to protect the air operations area (AOA)4 of an airport and as much surrounding area as possible with a general goal of reaching approximately 5 miles out from the center point of the AOA.

2) UAS Mitigation Testing - Conduct testing and evaluation of technologies/systems that offer mitigation capabilities, either as a stand-alone system or in conjunction with a detection capability, to protect the AOA of an airport.

The FAA reserves the right to pre-test mitigation technologies/systems in a controlled setting before introducing any system/technology into any airport environment for operational testing.

The selection of any offered system/technology for FAA’s research program may be denied, and testing of any selected mitigation systems/technologies may be discontinued at any stage, due to the identification of unacceptable adverse impacts or interference caused by the system/technology to safe airport operations, navigation, air traffic services, or the safe and efficient operation of the NAS.

Period of Performance (PoP)/ Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM):

The PoP/ ROM will be determined based on the projects proposed. There are currently no set parameters for these elements.

3 See 49 U.S.C. § 44801(5) for definition of counter-UAS.

4 See 14 C.F.R. § 153.3 for definition of air operations area.

Topic Number: ARAS0010: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAS0011: This topic has been deleted.

Topic Number: ARAS0012:

Autonomously Deployed Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems “Drone-in-a-Box” for On- Airport Applications

Technical POCs: Garrison Canter; Garrison.J.Canter@faa.gov Michael DiPilato; Michael.DiPilato@faa.gov

Copy: 9-ACT-AAQ-600-BAA@faa.gov

Background:

The FAA’s Airport Technology Research and Development Branch (ATR) is currently conducting research on how to integrate small-unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) into the airport environment for various use cases (applications). These applications include: obstacle data collection, airfield pavement inspections, wildlife hazard management (dispersal and monitoring), perimeter inspections and surveillance, airfield lighting inspections, construction monitoring, foreign object debris (FOD) detection, and aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF). ATR is currently in the process of expanding their research portfolio to include additional applications that will improve airport safety.

ATR personnel found that sUASs can provide significant benefits for on-airport applications, such as enhanced situational awareness for ARFF response and inspecting hard-to-reach or inaccessible perimeter areas. However, the practicality and time savings of sUAS are currently limited by the need for an onsite remote pilot to physically launch the sUAS and maintain visual line of sight throughout the flight.

Several UAS manufacturers have developed autonomously-deployed sUAS, also known as a “drone-in-a-box” sUAS. A drone-in-a-box sUAS typically consists of an unmanned aircraft that is launched and recovered from a self-contained base station without the need for an on-site remote pilot. These systems are typically used to conduct scheduled and on-demand facility inspections and patrols at remote facilities. Several public safety departments have also begun to implement autonomously-deployed sUAS as part of “Drone as First Responder” (DFR) programs. The FAA is interested in exploring the use of drone-in-a-box sUAS in an airport environment to potentially provide increased efficiency and more rapid response versus traditional manually-deployed UASs.

Purpose:

Conduct research on the use of autonomously deployed UAS (i.e., “drone-in-a-box’ system) for conducting on airport applications, including, but not limited to, airport perimeter inspections/surveillance and ARFF live monitoring.

The FAA would like white papers to address the specific areas listed below; however, submittals are not limited to these requirements:

Conduct research, testing, and evaluations to determine the feasibility of airports utilizing autonomously-deployed sUAS for conducting on-airport applications (including, but not limited to, airport perimeter inspections and surveillance and ARFF live monitoring).

Identify the capabilities and limitations for the airport use of autonomously deployed

UAS.

Develop recommended performance standards and considerations/best practices for the on-airport use of autonomous UAS.

Conduct research, testing, and evaluations on new and innovative autonomously deployed UAS for airport applications. As part of this research, the contractor must collaborate with “drone-in-a-box” vendor(s) to install, test, and evaluate drone-in-a-box system(s) at two airports (one non-towered and one towered) for a minimum of 3 months.

The two airports will be selected in coordination with the FAA. Cape May County Airport (WWD) and Atlantic City International Airport (ACY) should be used for cost estimation purposes. One or both of these airports may be changed in coordination with the FAA after the contractor’s white paper is accepted. Note:

System installation and testing periods at each airport should be staggered to allow for findings and lessons learned from the first airport to be incorporated for the second airport.

As part of this research effort, the FAA is requesting that the contractor conduct beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations at each airport without visual observers. The FAA will work with the contractor to select these BVLOS corridors/criteria. It is anticipated that these operations would initially be conducted in designated 'low risk' corridors and expand to other areas of the airport, as feasible. In order to meet this requirement. the contractor will have to conduct a safety risk management analysis and work closely with the airport sponsor and applicable local and FAA stakeholders.

Potential Offerors must have experience operating sUAS in an airport environment and obtaining airspace authorizations and operational waivers. They must also have experience coordinating with airport operators, air traffic control facilities, and other local stakeholders.

The Period of Performance (PoP) for projects under this topic is anticipated not to exceed 24 months. There are currently no set parameters for the ROM.

AVIATION RESEARCH SOFTWARE & SYSTEMS

(ARSS)

Topic Number: ARSS0001: This topic has been replaced with ARSS0008.

Topic Number: ARSS0002:

Flight Controls and Mechanical Systems

Technical POC: Robert McGuire; Robert.J.McGuire@faa.gov

The FAA’s Small Airplane Directorate has been working for a number of years to address General Aviation (GA) safety and to create a regulatory environment that uses advances in technology to enhance GA safety. In that time, the certification process study and Part 23 rewrite have indicated a need for the FAA to keep pace with technology and specifically apply it to prevent fatal GA accidents. Using a data driven approach, the FAA, along with the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GA-JSC), have identified the top three causes of fatal GA accidents to be: loss of control (LOC), controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), and system or component failure - power plant. Advanced Flight Controls, including augmented flight path control can help address many of these root causes of fatal GA accidents.

The purpose of this Topic is to solicit white papers from the aviation community to develop proposed methods of compliance for certification of advanced flight control systems and address the root causes of fatal GA accidents. The white papers can focus on any one part of these causes, multiple parts of these causes, or all the causes. Offerors are welcome to submit multiple white papers if desired.

The FAA wants to identify barriers to certification and find ways to affordably certify systems and safety enhancements. Results will be used by the FAA and/or industry to capture best design practices, create industry standards, field new designs, and develop methods of compliance for certification of advanced flight control systems. Ultimately, the expected outcome will be a significant reduction of Loss of Control, CFIT, and power plant related GA accidents.

Requirements:

The FAA would like to address the specific areas listed below, however, white papers are not limited to these requirements. Innovative ideas are welcome and encouraged.

Aviation Safety Research focusing on new and innovative Cockpit Displays, Heads-up

Displays, and/or Inceptors for General Aviation, VTOL, VSTOL, or Hybrid aircraft.

Aviation Safety Research focusing on new and innovative Autopilot technologies, Flight

Path Control Systems, Automation, and/or Collision Avoidance Systems for General

Aviation, VTOL, VSTOL, or Hybrid aircraft.

Aviation Safety Research focusing on developing Mission Task Elements, Means of

Compliance/Methods of Compliance, or other research to assist in the certification of General Aviation, VTOL, VSTOL, or Hybrid aircraft.

Aviation Safety Research focusing on how sensors, avionics, processors, actuators, etc.

could be used to enhance GA safety by safely retrofit into existing General Aviation aircraft.

Aviation Safety Research focusing on automation in the context of safe flight path augmentation, automation for safety risk controls, aiding pilot decision making, reducing pilot workload, performing dynamic consistency checks, and providing run time assurance for complex systems.

Aviation Safety Research focusing on ways to enhance the safety of commercial Urban Air Mobility.

Aviation Safety Research focusing on ways to reduce the General Aviation accident rate.

Aviation Safety Research to address design best-practices, architectures, and methods of compliance to affordably implement basic envelope protection, augmented flight path control systems, and energy management concepts.

Aviation Safety Research to propose ways to address pilot distraction, confusion or pilot errors that have resulted in GA accidents and incidents.

Aviation Safety Research to propose design best-practices, architectures, and methods of compliance to certify “refuse to crash” hazard avoidance systems. These systems have awareness of threats such as terrain, obstacles, weather, and other aircraft.

Period of Performance/Rough Order of Magnitude:

The Period of Performance (PoP)/Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) will be generally determined based on the projects proposed. However, tasks lasting for more than 3 years will NOT be considered.

Continued efforts at the completion of each milestone or deliverable are at the discretion of the FAA, based on performance and results. These efforts are anticipated to be funded annually, subject to availability of funds. There are currently no set parameters for the ROM.

Topic Number: ARSS0003:

Integrated Flight and Propulsion Control for Rotorcraft

Technical POC: Dan Dellmyer; Dan.Dellmyer@faa.gov Alternate POC: Traci Stadtmueller; Traci.Stadtmueller@faa.gov

New and novel ways of integrating propulsion and flight controls to simultaneously produce lift, thrust and control of vertical landing aircraft are being introduced. Some of the existing system requirements, airworthiness standards and associated means of compliance are not applicable, need modification or need to be drafted. Flight characteristics and thrust/control coupling of multiple propulsion and control effector vehicles (multi-rotor copters of 3 or more blades) need to be understood.

This Topic is part of a proactive effort by the FAA to engage with industry and collaborate on emerging technologies. Furthermore, the FAA wants to identify barriers to certification and find ways to affordably certify systems and safety enhancements on powered-lift and distributed lift rotorcraft.

The purpose of this Topic is to solicit white papers from the rotorcraft and non-rotorcraft community that offer potential solutions for multi-rotor powered-lift and rotorcraft/vehicles that will provide needed data/information to help the FAA develop guidance and airworthiness criteria and means of compliance for this type of vehicle.

The FAA would like white papers to address one or more of the specific areas listed below, however, proposals are not limited to these requirements. Innovative ideas are welcome and encouraged.

Stability: Height-speed envelope, main rotor speed and pitch limits, general flight characteristics.

Control bandwidth requirements and external disturbance rejection capability and evaluation.

Performance: General, landing, autorotation (emergency landing), controllability and maneuverability.

Failure modes and acceptable system degradation capabilities.

System Integration/Flight Management: eVTOL simulation or actual test demonstration to cover takeoff, en route, and landing phase for normal and emergency procedures.

Since certifying Emergency Auto-Land, the FAA has been looking at a new paradigm in automation integration. In some cases now, the automation is there to back up the pilot (correcting for pilot incapacitation or pilot errors) instead of the pilot stepping in when the automation fails. What types of training and aircraft certification standards should apply in this new paradigm? With new and novel automation integration (especially with fly-by-wire eVTOL aircraft and integrated envelope protections) how do the assumptions of pilot interaction with the aircraft and system change?