Collaborative Research in Structural Sciences | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the "Collaborative Research in Structural Sciences" opportunity?

It was a U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) discretionary funding announcement focused on advancing core science and engineering methods for predicting how structures behave in demanding, realistic conditions. The program was framed as a collaborative research effort in structural sciences.

Which agency sponsored this opportunity?

The sponsoring agency was the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

What was the funding opportunity number and program identification?

The funding opportunity number was BAA RQKPC 12 01. It was listed under CFDA 12.800 (Air Force Defense Research Sciences Program).

What funding mechanism was used (grant, contract, cooperative agreement)?

The announcement was offered under a cooperative agreement mechanism.

What does "cooperative agreement" imply for how the work would be conducted?

A cooperative agreement typically implies active involvement by the government technical team during the period of performance. In this case, that involvement was described in terms of technical interchange, coordination on objectives, and shared refinement of approaches, rather than a hands-off grant.

What was the program trying to achieve from a technical standpoint?

The program aimed to improve the accuracy and efficiency of structural simulation and durability prediction methods so they can better represent realistic, demanding conditions.

How many technical thrust areas were described, and how are they related?

Three connected thrust areas were described. Together, they target more accurate and more efficient structural simulation and durability prediction, spanning long-duration multi-physics simulation methods, reduced order modeling with damage and thermal-structural effects, and high-fidelity constitutive and damage evolution models.

What is Thrust 1 about (adaptive, multi-scale strategies)?

Thrust 1 emphasized adaptive, multi-scale strategies working across space and time for long-duration, path-dependent structural simulations under combined environments. It pointed to approaches that can handle complex loading histories over time and combined environmental influences, while keeping long simulations accurate and computationally feasible.

What kinds of scenarios are implied by "long-duration, path-dependent" structural simulations?

The description points to situations where a structure experiences complex loading histories over time, such as fatigue, creep, cyclic thermal-mechanical loading, or mission profiles, where the response depends on the accumulated history rather than only the current load state.

What does "combined environments" mean in the context of Thrust 1?

It suggests the structure is subjected to more than one coupled influence at the same time, such as thermal effects plus mechanical loads, with the possibility of additional coupled influences.

What does "adaptive" and "multi-scaling" suggest in the methods sought under Thrust 1?

It suggests interest in approaches that can dynamically refine the model where needed (for example, time stepping, mesh resolution, or physics fidelity) and connect behavior from smaller scales to full structural response, supporting long simulations that remain both accurate and computationally manageable.

What is Thrust 2 about (damage-integrated structural-thermal reduced order models)?

Thrust 2 focused on damage-integrated structural-thermal reduced order models (ROMs) for realistic structural components. Reduced order modeling was framed as a way to capture essential behavior from high-fidelity simulations in a faster surrogate model, enabling repeated evaluation for design trades, uncertainty studies, or real-time/near-real-time prediction.

What does "damage-integrated" mean for the reduced order models in Thrust 2?

It indicates the ROMs were expected to represent degradation and failure progression, not just elastic or undamaged response.

What does "structural-thermal" mean for the ROMs in Thrust 2?

It means the reduced order models were expected to account for thermal-structural coupling, rather than treating thermal effects and structural response as separate, uncoupled problems.

What is meant by "realistic structural components" in Thrust 2?

The language indicates an interest in moving beyond idealized test coupons to components with geometries, boundary conditions, and loading scenarios closer to operational hardware.

What is Thrust 3 about (high-fidelity constitutive and material damage evolution models)?

Thrust 3 targeted high-fidelity continuum-level constitutive models and material damage evolution models. It emphasized improving physics-based material descriptions used in continuum mechanics simulations, including how materials deform and how they accumulate damage and evolve toward failure.

What does "continuum-level" imply for the models in Thrust 3?

It implies models intended for use in continuum mechanics simulations (for example, in finite element or similar computational frameworks), rather than purely discrete or microstructural simulations.

How do the three thrusts complement each other?

The thrusts were described as naturally complementary: improved constitutive and damage evolution models increase credibility of long-duration multi-physics simulations (Thrust 1) and can provide a high-fidelity basis from which reduced order models (Thrust 2) can be derived.

How many awards were anticipated?

The announcement anticipated a single award.

What was the estimated total funding level?

The estimated total funding level was $3,500,000.

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The opportunity did not require cost sharing or matching.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was listed as unrestricted, meaning it was open to any applicant type (organizations or entities), subject to any clarifications in the full announcement.

When was the opportunity posted and when did it close?

It was originally posted on September 17, 2012. The original closing date was October 31, 2012.

Was the proposal due date extended?

Yes. The proposal due date was extended to November 7, 2012.

When was the opportunity archived?

The archive date was November 30, 2012.

Who was the technical point of contact for questions about the research topics?

The technical point of contact was Ravi Penmetsa, AFRL/RQSS, Program Engineer. Phone: (937) 656-8799. Email: ravi.penmetsa@wpafb.af.mil.

Who should be contacted for access issues related to the full announcement?

For access issues related to the full announcement, applicants were directed to contact Noreen Bennett, Contracting Officer, at (937) 656-9671.

Where does this opportunity sit within Air Force funding programs?

It was identified under CFDA 12.800, the Air Force Defense Research Sciences Program.

What kind of government involvement should applicants have expected during performance?

Because it used a cooperative agreement, applicants should have expected active engagement with the government technical team through technical interchange, coordination on objectives, and shared refinement of approaches during the period of performance.