Question 1:
List of “non-responsive applications” in the area of interest 3(a) includes “non-homogeneous materials such as metal matrix composites”.
If a cast aluminum material with addition of 1 wt% inert (ceramic) nanoparticles, e.g. aluminum oxide, or other ceramic materials, would the material be the “non-responsive application”?
Answer 1:
For the purposes of this FOA, metal matrix composites are defined as a material having multiple phases where at least one of the phases is added to the mold or melt during processing. If the composite requires the addition of metallic, intermetallic, or non-metallic particles to the mold or addition and mixing into the melt prior to filling the mold, the approach would be considered non-responsive.
Question 2:
ICME – is a list of codes or capabilities being considered available?
Answer 2:
DOE will not provide a list of codes or capabilities in ICME. Applicants should propose models and code that are appropriate to their specific FEP.
Question 3:
Key Properties (Must Meet)
a) Under Table 6 and Table 7 , High Temperature Performance, is this just material property determination from test at-temperature and not held at temperature for extended time period, i.e. 100 hours, 1000 hrs., etc. Also is it test in compliance with EN 10-002-1 or En 10-002-5, since the later utilizes a slower rate of deformation and recent work published in the AFS journal (IJMC, Summer 2011, Issue 5 Vol. 2, pp. 21) demonstrates a 10% reduction in measured Yield Strength at 300oC between the two methods when testing a 319 type ally intended for cylinder head applications.
b) Fluidity – what type of ‘Spiral’ test, since many different approaches have been used and not standardized.
c) Table 7, pg. 24 of 59 – Fe Cast Baseline & Target Properties (Tensile and Yield Strength), these value are much higher that what has been measured and published in literature, including work funded previously by DOE. ASF, under a contract to Defense Logistics Agency, recently completed additional strain-life fatigue tests per SAE J1099 for SAE J1337 CGI Grade400 76 mm test bars, representative of heavy section diesel engine blocks, and only obtained 63 ksi UTS, and in previous 25 mm test specimens 75 ksi was observed. Please note the specification minimum is 400 Mpa (58 ksi). How was UTS 30-90 ksi and Key Target of 100 ksi determined, what data or referenced and validated results? The same question about the High Temperature Properties. i. Multiple grades of a variety of cast irons were subjected to a considerable variety of tests, and a database containing the strain-life fatigue properties of multiple grades of cast iron was developed and published in 20031. The work was originally funded by the U.S. Department of Energy/Cast Metals Coalition (DOE/CMC) with guidance by the American Foundry Society (AFS). Since the publication of the original DOE report,7 additional grades have been tested and the database contents have been augmented on an ongoing basis with additional AFS research funds. AFS has also developed an on-line materials database searching tool called CADS, which will eventually include this strain-life fatigue database product.
Answer 3:
a) Material properties reported must be the result of standardized measurement techniques used on the new alloy. DOE does not prescribe which standardized tests and techniques must be used. However, applicants should state the rationale for using their proposed testing methodology.
b) Data collected from non-standardized tests must be reported with sufficient detail on testing conditions to support independent validation of results.
c) Significantly higher performance alloys are needed to realize higher cylinder pressures in high-efficiency, light-duty passenger and heavy duty vehicle engines. Increased strength and operating temperature requirements were the result of automobile and heavy-truck manufacturers/tier 1 suppliers (over 100 represented) input at the Vehicle Technologies Materials Roadmap workshop held in March 2011 in Dearborn Michigan. The targets reflect this need.
Question 5:
Manufacturing Technologies Considered: for both AOI 3a and 3b it is stated “Only applications using sand or investment casting of aluminum will be considered; other casting techniques such as permanent mold casting will be non-responsive.” Pg. 19 of 59 and 23 of 59
a. First, while sand casting represents significant portion of engine block production (3a) and all of (3b) engine blocks & heads, semi-permanent mold is the predominant manufacturing approach (metal mold incorporating sand internal and side cores) for (3a) cylinder heads. Also, lost foam casting is still a significant manufacturing approach for both blocks and heads for (3a) and is under consideration for (3b) type parts.
b. Investment casting is not utilized directly for either (3a) or (3b) block or head production, but only for some ancillary powertrain components. Since cost targets are a key element of the FOA, why was investment casting included and some other approaches excluded?
c. Can SPM (Semi-permanent mold) be considered a sand casting process or ‘responsive’?
d. Can Lost Foam be considered an acceptable (responsive) process?
Answer 5:
For 3a Only applications using sand or investment casting of aluminum will be considered; other casting techniques such as permanent mold casting will be non-responsive.
For 3b Only applications using sand or investment casting will be considered; other casting techniques such as permanent mold casting will be non-responsive.
Semi-permanent mold casting is considered in-scope; proposals featuring semi-permanent mold castings will be considered responsive. Lost foam casting is considered a subset of investment casting and is considered in-scope; proposals featuring lost foam casting will be considered responsive.
Question 6:
Key Properties (Must Meet) Table 7, previously question was asked how the Key Target of 100 ksi Tensile Strength for High Temperature Performance at 350 C was established, to which the following response was given that “ Increased strength and operating temperature requirements were the result of automobile and heavy-truck manufacturers/tier 1 suppliers (over 100 represented) input at the Vehicle Technologies Materials Roadmap workshop held in March 2011 in Dearborn Michigan. The targets reflect this need.” Is a copy of either the proceedings or minutes of that meeting reflecting that input and discussion available?
Answer 6:
Proceedings from the workshop have not yet been published. The DOE does not anticipate the proceedings to be published prior to the FOA closing date.
Question 7:
Topic 1 is seeking Predictive Engineering Tools for Injection Molded Long Carbon Fiber Thermoplastic Composites. Would similar predictive engineering tools for glass fibers be non-responsive?
Answer 7:
The intent of Topic 1 is to development of predictive engineering tools for carbon fiber reinforced, long fiber thermoplastic composites. To the extent that modeling of glass fibers contributes to the understanding of long carbon fiber behavior such efforts would be within scope; however, the end result must be predictive tools for the orientation and distribution of long carbon fiber thermoplastic composites. Efforts which do not lead to the understanding of carbon fiber as the reinforcing material are not desired.
Question 8:
Phase 1 of DE-FOA-0000648 AOI 2 requires specific model elements to be validated to 15% of experimental results. However, construction and testing of the completed assembly will not be funded. Should validation of the specific model elements use the incumbent assembly materials, processing and performance only? Alternatively should the Phase 2 integrated model output be validated with coupons extracted from 3GAHSS coupons?
Answer 8:
The FOA indicates that for Phase 2 the "integrated model results are within 15% of coupon-level experimental results for all relevant outputs" (pg. 18). Experimental validation of 3GAHSS properties must at least occur at the coupon level.
Question 10:
On page 21, the non-responsive applications include "Applications that propose the use of materials which exhibit strengths lower than the existing baselines, such as Magnesium, or non-homogenous materials such as metal matrix composites."
Question 1. If a metal matrix composite has a strength higher than the baseline strength, will it be considered to be responsive?
Question 2. What is the definition of metal matrix composite in the context of this FOA? Does it mean the percentage of non-metallic phases exceeding a critical value?
Question 3. What is the definition of non-homogenous materials? Microscopically, cast Al alloys contain many phases so they are inherently non-homogenous at the microscopic level.
Answer 10:
Question 1: Please see Question 2 for clarification of a MMC in the context of this FOA, and discussion of responsiveness.
Question 2: For the purposes of this FOA, metal matrix composites are defined as a material having multiple phases where at least one of the phases is added to the mold or melt during processing. If the composite requires the addition of metallic, intermetallic, or non-metallic particles to the mold or addition and mixing into the melt prior to filling the mold, the approach would be considered non-responsive.
Question 3: A cast material where the second phase is precipitated in the cast material (rather than added to the melt or mold) is technically non-homogeneous but is considered in scope.
Question 12:
Can a governmental research organization outside the United State, in this case from Canada, apply to this FOA or is this restricted to US research laboratories/entities ?
Can non-US research organisation apply to this FOA if the application includes US partners ?
Answer 12:
Per Section III – Eligibility Information, A. Eligible Applicants, all domestic entities are eligible to apply. So, no, a non-U.S. organization is not eligible to apply.
And while the FOA does not restrict non-U.S. organization from proposing as a subrecipient, per Section III – Eligibility Information, C. Other Eligibility Requirements, “The subrecipient effort, in aggregate, shall not exceed 49% of the total estimated cost of the project, including the applicant's and the FFRDC contractor's portions of the effort.”
Additionally, per Section V, Application Review Information, A. Criteria, 2. Merit Review Criteria, each Area of Interest, under the Project Approach, contains the following criterion: “Extent of work performed in the United States.”
Question 14:
Based on the table for maximum award size Area of Interest (AOI) 2 has a maximum of $6,000,000 and the cost share is 30% or $1,800,000 over the 4 year period of performance. Is my cost share correct for AOI 2?
Answer 14:
No, the calculation is not correct. Cost share should be calculated using the total project costs. In your example, you are calculating cost share based on the maximum DOE funds.
Question 15:
Our team is seriously developing a high quality proposal response, and respectfully requests that DOE extend the deadline for proposals under FOA 648 from May 7 to May 21. Would that be possible?
Answer 15:
It is not DOE's intent to extend the application due date.
Question 16:
If we partner with a foreign government-funded laboratory, would the contribution of effort by this foreign laboratory count as in-kind?
Answer 16:
The FOA does not restrict non-U.S. organizations from proposing as a subrecipient, per Section III – Eligibility Information, C. Other Eligibility Requirements, “The subrecipient effort, in aggregate, shall not exceed 49% of the total estimated cost of the project, including the applicant's and the FFRDC contractor's portions of the effort.”
However, per Section V, Application Review Information, A. Criteria, 2. Merit Review Criteria, each Area of Interest, under the Project Approach, contains the following criterion: “Extent of work performed in the United States.”
The FOA refers applicants to the 10 CFR 600 for the applicable cost sharing requirements.
Question 22:
Regarding Table 5 of the FOA, specifically, the "N/A" designation to the right of "Microstructure Morphology"...is a correct interpretation of this as follows: microstructural modeling will not render the proposal unresponsive, i.e. microstructure modeling is expected, but that there is no need to meet specific error tolerances?
Answer 22:
That is correct. Microstructural morphology is a required modeling element, but no error tolerance is specified.
Question 23:
On page 24 the FOA for Area 3b states that each project will consist of two phases, with a follow on solicitation to validate improved performance in an engine. Then the FOA goes on to describe Phase 1 – Alloy Development and Phase 2 – Cost Modeling. Just to be clear – is the Phase 2 cost modeling intended to be part of the current proposal? We read it as though it is, but we would like a clarification since the language in the fourth paragraph on p24 also suggests that Phase 2 could be in the future follow-on solicitation.
Answer 23:
Cost modeling is a key component of topics 3a and 3b within the FOA.
In the case of topic 3a, the cost models must demonstrate the ability of components (cylinder head or engine block) made using the new alloy to be less than 110% of the cost of the same components using A319 or A356 aluminum alloys at a given production level."
In the case of topic 3b, the cost models must demonstrate the ability of components (cylinder head or engine block) made using the new alloy to cost less than 120% of the cost of A48 Cast Iron alloy at the given production level.
Question 26:
When completing the SF424A document, are you requiring a breakdown by task? We are trying to determine if each party in our proposal must submit 5 separate SF424A documents (one for each year and one cumulative) or if they can combine all of their information in one SF424A document.
Answer 26:
When completing the SF424A, the costs should be broken down by budget category, as is specified on the form. For any subcontrator whose portion of the work exceeds $100K, the SF424A must be completed for the cumulative budget, and an SF424A must be completed for each project year.
However, please do not confuse the SF424A with the budget breakdown to be included in the Project Management Plan, in which, as stated in the FOA, costs must broken down by task.