DIGITAL ENGINEERING - Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) Risk Toolset

Navy SBIR 22.1 - Topic N221-030
NAVSEA - Naval Sea Systems Command
Opens: January 12, 2022 - Closes: February 10, 2022 (12:00pm est)

N221-030 TITLE: DIGITAL ENGINEERING - Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) Risk Toolset

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials / Processes

OBJECTIVE: Develop a Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) toolset that will enable additive manufacturing (AM)-specific design and manufacturing-driven risk analysis within a single user interface.

DESCRIPTION: Existing DfAM tools, both for generative design and modeling and simulation, are generally employed in separate software packages. Similarly, certain aspects unique to AM are not included in many of the existing software tools currently available. Additionally, the calculation of risk due to changing the manufacturing method and materials, or utilizing a lower maturity manufacturing process, does not currently exist within many of the available design optimization software packages. Meanwhile, the AM Technical Warrant Holder (TWH) is establishing the specification and standards development for AM technology to promote process qualification and quality assurance of AM parts. This modeling toolset is needed in conjunction with these technical publications to minimize engineering risk of using AM as a replacement manufacturing method of a traditionally manufactured part.

This SBIR topic seeks a combined toolset accessible through a single user interface able to simulate the performance expectations and failure modes for various physics scenarios (e.g., static loading, thermal transfer, mass transfer, etc.) expected for a part when fabricated using AM. The desired DfAM toolset should be comprised of three modules: 1. Part specific performance modeling and simulation (M&S) as a result of manufacturing process constraints (i.e., anisotropic behavior) (henceforth "Part Performance M&S Module"), 2. Producibility, manufacturability, and manufacturing-driven generative design analysis to improve design for manufacturing, (henceforth "Optimization Module) and 3. Manufacturing process-driven risk analysis (henceforth "Risk Analysis Module"). These three modules should provide feedback to perform calculations across each module; however, each module should be able to stand independently and perform with only the minimum amount of provided inputs.

Within the Part Performance M&S Module, the orientation of the build, anisotropy of the part, and any additives/reinforcements within the build must be considered to provide an accurate expectation of part performance. The Part Performance M&S and Optimization Modules shall be able to inform the following, given the AM process, Manufacturing Readiness Level, and material being used: optimized geometry, optimized reinforcement locations and parameters, optimized infill geometry and fill percentage, and alternate additive materials/manufacturing processes.

Finally, the Risk Analysis Module shall calculate a risk analysis for using AM when compared to the original part manufacturing method, lower the risk of engineering change proposals, and inform Fleet AM designs in the deployed environment. The analysis and resulting capabilities will be used to inform technical authority and program offices on the expectation of performance comparisons between the traditional part and the AM version. In addition, part performance trade-off analyses should be able to be completed based on potential lead time and cost reduction of a design that may not achieve the same longevity or durability. The following attributes should be considered in the Risk Analysis Module (This is not an all-inclusive list. Additional attributes will be provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI) to the awarded contractors):

  • Part complexity
  • Traditional manufacturing method(s) if applicable
  • Material performance requirements
  • Manufacturing Process maturity
  • Existing material and process data available
  • Part performance requirements
  • Part criticality (probability and severity)
  • Part performance trade-off analyses (for example, reduced longevity of a part for shorter lead time and lower cost)

This toolset must provide a summary report that outlines expected key performance parameters for the part(s) under analysis and establishes a level of risk as a result of using AM to fabricate the part when compared to traditional manufacturing. A demonstration of this output report must be provided, as well as attached to the AM Technical Data Packages (in accordance with MIL-STD 31000B [Ref 1]), as appropriate. The resultant parts shall be tested for performance in accordance with the part requirements provided by the Navy to demonstrate DfAM toolset part performance prediction accuracy.

If all modules are not included in the prototype, but the contractor expects to be able to develop them, an implementation plan to include the various elements of the capabilities must be provided. User manuals instructing toolset usage, troubleshooting, and any other required information/training material to sufficiently operate the toolset must also be developed. 25 licenses of the developed product will be provided for testing and evaluation to the Navy stakeholders ó 10 for NAVSEA, 10 for NAVAIR, 5 for NAVSUP.

The solution must use a model-based systems engineering approach to establish a single User Interface (UI) that can communicate with the entirety of the solution set. Government Furnished Information (GFI) in the form of a standard or guidance document will be provided to performers to ensure Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) compliance for unclassified Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDTE) networked machines. The developed solution must comply with the DISA guidance and operate in the Windows 10 or newer operating systems with an approved Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) with configurable controls to meet DISA compliance requirements [Ref 7]. The toolset should be able to provide a summary report of the results in a concise format (Text, Comma separated value (CSV), Microsoft Word, Excel, other and/or Portable Document Format (PDF)) that can be included for the technical authority reviews. Finally, as the Navy works towards migration into Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) platforms, data produced within this toolset should be able to communicate with the PLM platforms. These platforms will be based on Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) PLM programs.

A toolset to optimize various parameters within the AM process, as well as provide accurate, AM-specific, part simulations, will reduce risk of adoption of the AM technology across the NAVSEA enterprise. AM has the potential to reduce the lead time on many parts within the supply system, as well as provide an alternate manufacturing source for other parts. This flexibility, coupled with the added engineering confidence that the part will perform to the technical requirements, could result in more AM parts within the supply chain, ultimately reducing lead time for parts and increasing readiness of the warfighter.

PHASE I: Develop a conceptual program architecture and description of supporting software required to meet DfAM modules described in the Description. Demonstrate the feasibility of the concept to address the three modules. Include a description of each of the proposed models and their expected inputs and outputs. If a solution cannot support all of the modules a detailed justification to meet the described parameters listed in the Description must be provided along with a roadmap projecting how the contractor would overcome the technological gaps prohibiting completion of all three modules.

The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications, capabilities description to build a prototype solution, and hardware requirements in Phase II.

PHASE II: Develop and deliver a prototype of the DfAM Risk-based toolset that demonstrates the usability of the three-module DfAM toolset. The prototype should demonstrate the intuitive user interface that supports all of the Phase I development, as well as all of the major elements listed in the Description section. The Navy will provide 1-3 use-cases to walk through the prototype solution.

The software should meet all the requirements of the Description and be able to interface with the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) tools used by the Navy. In addition, the solution must consider hosting platforms to sustain the solution, such as enterprise software environments including the Agile Warfighter Analytics Readiness Environment (AWARE) and the Enterprise Risk Analysis & Management Tool (ERAMT) Integrated Development Environment (IDE).

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Develop the final application package to include any road-mapped capabilities from Phase II. Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use. Develop a full user manual and training package. Additionally, connections to the NAVSEA method for storing and tracking material data should be possible. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) should be able to be established to make additional connections to Navy-specific databases in an effort to streamline data processing and minimize multiple sources of truth. The final transition and hosting platform, either standalone or Navy platform, will be finalized and software modified accordingly.

Additional considerations for the manufacturing location environmental variability (whether shipboard, land-based, expeditionary, or other) of the manufacturer should be able to be applied to inform a factor of safety adjustment to the simulation and design considerations. This could be used to improve robustness of AM parts manufactured in the shipboard environment, improve shipboard part certification confidence, and be leveraged by the Fleet community to inform designs of parts at-sea, as well as formalize the risk analysis procedures.

This software would be applicable to other manufacturing processes and could be leveraged by various program offices and engineering support sites. The risk analysis module could be used to inform engineering-related risk assessments that could be integrated into the Enterprise Risk Analysis & Management Tool (ERAMT).


  2. United States Department of Navy: Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA05). (17August 2018). Letter 4870 Ser 05T/2018-024, Guidance on the Use of Additive Manufacturing.
  3. American Bureau of Shipping, Guidance Notes on Additive Manufacturing, Technical Report, Houston, TX, 2018.
  4. American Bureau of Shipping, Advisory on Additive Manufacturing, Technical Report Houston, TX, 2018.
  5. Bendsoe, Martin Philip. author. (2013). Topology Optimization Theory, Methods, and Applications, Edition 2. Berlin, Heidelberg :Sprinter Science & Business Media
  6. Bendsoe, Martin Philip. author. (2006). Solid Mechanics and its Applications: IUTAM Symposium on Topological Design Optimization of Structures, Machines, and Materials. Berlin, Heidelberg :Sprinter Science & Business Media
  7. Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) process for Vendors.

KEYWORDS: Additive manufacturing; AM; 3D printing; modeling and simulation; geometry optimization; risk analysis; failure modes; DfAM


The Navy Topic above is an "unofficial" copy from the overall DoD 22.1 SBIR BAA. Please see the official DoD Topic website at for any updates.

The DoD issued its 22.1 SBIR BAA pre-release on December 1, 2021, which opens to receive proposals on January 12, 2022, and closes February 10, 2022 (12:00pm est).

Direct Contact with Topic Authors: During the pre-release period (December 1, 2021 thru January 11, 2022) proposing firms have an opportunity to directly contact the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) to ask technical questions about the specific BAA topic. Once DoD begins accepting proposals on January 12, 2022 no further direct contact between proposers and topic authors is allowed unless the Topic Author is responding to a question submitted during the Pre-release period.

SITIS Q&A System: After the pre-release period, proposers may submit written questions through SITIS (SBIR/STTR Interactive Topic Information System) at, login and follow instructions. In SITIS, the questioner and respondent remain anonymous but all questions and answers are posted for general viewing.

Topics Search Engine: Visit the DoD Topic Search Tool at to find topics by keyword across all DoD Components participating in this BAA.

Help: If you have general questions about DoD SBIR program, please contact the DoD SBIR Help Desk via email at [email protected]

[ Return ]