[PPT] - More Affordable for the Department David E. Mortin, Ph.D. PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.

Making Army Systems More Reliable for our Soldiers and More Affordable for the Department

David E. Mortin, Ph.D. AMSAA david.e.mortin.civ@mail.mil 410.278.6248

SLIDE 2

16-Jun-13 2

AMSAA

Logistics Engineering Analysis Management & Business Operations Analysis Materiel Performance & Effectiveness Analysis

Enterprise, Lifecycle, Milestone Analysis of Alternatives, Cross-Functional, Fleet, System-Levels, etc.

Strategic Analyses AMSAA Analysis Informs Decisions Impacting Both Current Operations and Army Transformation

Mission: AMSAA conducts analyses across the Materiel Lifecycle to inform critical decisions for current and future Soldier needs

Systems Performance Analysis
Dev/Cert. of Systems Perf Data
Dev of System Perf Meth/M&S
Technology & Risk Assessment
Indep. Evaluator – Chem Demil
Exec. Agent, DoD’s JTCG-ME
Supply Chain Analysis
System Support M&S and Data Dev.
Field Data Collection & Analysis
Reliability & Physics of Failure Analysis
Exec. Agent, Army RAM Standards
Logistics Methodology Dev/M&S
Corporate Decision Risk Analysis
Business Case/Economic Analysis
Cost-Benefits Analysis
Army Acquisition Lessons Learned
Center for Reliability Growth
Materiel Lessons Learned Analysis

SLIDE 3

16-Jun-13 3

O&S Costs "We have a tendency to look at what it takes to get a program out the door. We don't think too much about what the life cycle [cost] is. It's 'Can I build it?‘ I would like us all to be mindful of what it costs to operate whatever we are building for whatever its life is going to be because I have to pay that bill every single year.“

CNO, ADM Michael G. Mullen in an interview with "Government

Executive" magazine May 15, 2006 From “Improving System Reliability Through Better Systems Engineering,”

Dr. Charles E. McQueary, Director, OT&E

NDIA SE Conference, October 2007

Rotary Wing Aircraft Fighter Aircraft 65% 66% 31% 29% 4% Ground Combat Systems Surface Ships 68% 60% 28% 39% 4% 1% 5%

RDTE Procurement O&S

Operations and Support Costs Largest Fraction of Life Cycle Cost

SLIDE 4

16-Jun-13 4

Reliability Challenges

 Microsoft's Xbox 360 Debuted in 2005  Within three years of release, as many as 1 in 6 consoles suffered from a failure, (some report as high as 1 in 3)  $1.9B loss  Interviews suggested that the failures were a result of: – Poor system design – Parts supply – Material reliability – Manufacturing issues – Inadequate testing

Results
Microsoft extended warranty
Class Action Lawsuit
Redesign

Heat sink bracket failure

SLIDE 5

16-Jun-13 5

Reliability Even More Challenging in the Army Environment

SLIDE 6

 Infantry  Adjutant General's Corps  Corps of Engineers  Finance Corps  Quartermaster Corps  Air Defense Artillery  Field Artillery  Armo  Ordnance Corps  Signal Corps  Chemical Corps  Military Police Corps  Transportation Corps  Military Intelligence  Aviation  Special Forces

16-Jun-13 6

Army Branches Which Army Branches are the two Largest?

Ordnance Corps - keeps the Army's combat forces moving and shooting Quartermaster Corps - the Sustainer of the Army System Reliability is a Key Component Driving our Army Force Structure

SLIDE 7

16-Jun-13 7

80 114 175 215 220

CAP1 CAP2 CAP3 CAP4

50 100 150 200 250 300

Idealized Curve Customer Test Initial DT LUT LUT Excursion IOT

$869 M $894 M $1,103 M $1,701 M $2,457 M

Test Time (Hours)

CAP – Corrective Action Period

Reliability Growth & Its Impact on Support Costs

The most critical step is here Reliability Impact in the 100s of Millions or Billions of Dollars Reliability (Time to Failure)

SLIDE 8

16-Jun-13 8

ID Cost-Effective Solutions DYNAMIC MODELING FINITE ELEMENT MODELING Physics of Failure Analysis

Shock/Vib/Thermal/Modal Stress / Strain Computational Fluid Dynamics Multi-Body Dynamics

Time to Failure (Fatigue)
Failure Root Cause
Evaluation of Alternatives

RESULTS

TESTING

Basis of all PoF Efforts
Work with testers to get

the most out of each test

Ensure analysis-driven

data collection

RESULTS

SLIDE 9

16-Jun-13 9

Efficient Acquisition Through Early Design Influence

Robot Electronics Analysis

Vibration, shock, thermal and Plated Through Hole fatigue analyses conducted to improve designs early Used engineering analyses to support changing requirements and contract values

Roof Crush Analysis Vehicle Analytical Support

Using test data and engineering techniques to help determine when vehicles are over-tested

Firing Impact Analysis

Circuit cards simulated to experience transportation vibration, daily thermal cycling, solar radiation, and shock

Electronics

Analyzed circuit cards under harsh environments, identified failure mechanisms, and assisted PM & contractors in making early design changes to improve reliability and save costs Model used to determine realistic shock loads and board deformations during drop events

Drop Analyses

Design-for-Reliability process bridges Supplier-Gov’t gaps

Detector

Conducted analysis on vehicle electronics and identified areas of thermal concern for subsequent action

Vehicle Electronics

Across various systems, ROIs of 10:1 to 30:1 are common

SLIDE 10

16-Jun-13 10 16-Jun-13 10

Instrumentation Locations

 Proper instrumentation reduces costly re-tests  Locations based solely on previous experience may not be optimal and CAN PRODUCE MISLEADING RESULTS  M&S can determine locations to optimize data collected

Modeling & Simulation Results Actual Test Results

Bad Good

SLIDE 11

16-Jun-13 11

Armored Vehicle Analysis

Scope Impact Accomplishments

Developmental Testing planned to

compare old to new chassis

First 12K miles of testing yielded

positive results

Determine if remaining 15K miles of

testing is necessary

Used modeling and simulation and

an engineering instrumented test

Finite Element and Fatigue models

developed

Overstress safety factor comparison

between component generations

Multiple load cases and potential

failure locations considered

Proper instrumentation saved on

costly re-tests

Results provided additional

confidence to eliminate miles

Component Rating

Tie Rod G N-S Drag Link G E-W Drag Link G Suspension Strut G Trailing Arm G Steering Bearing Flange G Steering Knuckle G Control Arm G Wheel Bearing Flange G E-W Driveshaft G N-S Driveshaft G Differential Stubshaft G Differential G Steering Damper G

Cost avoidance to test program of $400,000

SLIDE 12

16-Jun-13 12

Vehicle Modification Analysis

Scope Impact Accomplishments

Cracks found in frame of cargo bed

during developmental testing

Planned corrective action to add box-

beam supports to cargo bed

Determined if support beams will affect

subsystems’ reliability by changing system dynamic response

AMSAA provided information on

system dynamic response changes due to support beams

Processed acceleration test data at

various locations for both configurations

‒ Time Domain ‒ Frequency Domain

Analysis determined that addition of

support beams does not change vibration environment

Corrective action would have no

negative impact to reliability

Re-test of new configuration was not

required, resulting in significant savings

Cost avoidance to test program of $435,000

0.0000001 0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 PSD Magnitude (g2/Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Averaged PSD Comparison

APU Bottom Without Beams (rms = 0.31) With Beams (rms = 0.32) Input: Munson Test Courses Delta F: 0.98 Hz Block Size: 2048 Windowing: Hann 0.01 0.1 1 10 1 10 100 1000 Fatigue Damage Ratio Frequency (Hz) Configuration Comparison Using Fatigue Damage Ratio With Beams Relative to Without Beams APU Top Vertical m = 3 m = 5 m = 8 Notes: m = exponent related to slope of S-N curve (log-log) Data indicate little fatigue difference between the two configurations.

Frequency Domain Fatigue Damage Ratio

X

X = location of box beam supports

X

SLIDE 13

16-Jun-13 13

Armor Analysis

Scope Impact Accomplishments

Armor fastens to outside of vehicle

via brackets

Need to determine effect of mortar

firings on brackets by identifying failure modes and estimate rounds fired to failure

Finite element and fatigue models

developed

Acquired firing pressure data to

make impulse estimations

Used dynamic modeling to

determine loads from road courses

Bolt and weld margin of safety

comparison using peakloads

Reduced Testing
Verified Product good to go

Reduced Test Costs By $160,000

Hull Impact Force Estimated Rounds to Failure Initial Impulse ~2.9M 2x Initial Impulse ~120K

Impact of Mortar Firing

SLIDE 14

16-Jun-13 14

Support to Army Depots

Scope Impact Accomplishments

Provide reliability improvement

experience and assistance to Depots

Perform root cause analysis and

suggest design modifications on recurring failures identified at Depots

Identified sources of failure and

devised mitigation strategies

Wheels, shelters, missiles, and more
Increased automation
More efficient processes
Lower costs

CRACK

Returns on Investment of 25:1 and higher

SLIDE 15

16-Jun-13 15

Simulation Benefits are Huge

Simulates system

behavior within an environment – Input to failure model(s) – Virtual testing

Fills in test gaps
Allows for extrapolation
f test procedures

– e.g., Beyond safety limits

Lowers program costs

because less physical testing needed

SLIDE 16

16-Jun-13 16

Providing State-of-the-Art Reliability Tools

AEC RAM Directorate Aeronautical Systems Center AFMC ASC/ENDR AFOTEC DET 6 Air Force Air Armament Center Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) Air Force Medical Evaluation Support Activity Air Force, AFMC/ASC/WPAFB Alion Science and Technology, System Reliability Center Allison Transmission AM General - Subcontractor to GTV AM General LLC AMC Logistics Leadership Center (ALLC) AMRDEC RDMR-SEM AMSAA ARDEC, RDAR-MEM-L/B65S, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ ARINC ASC/ENDR ASC/WLYE ASC/WWNL WPAFB ASH PMO ATC ATK Corporation BAE Systems BAE Systems, Global Combat Systems Bell Helicopter Textron Boeing UAS Booz Allen Hamilton CERDEC Product Realization Dir CirVibe Inc COMOPTEVFOR Computer Sciences Corp. Converteam Inc. CPS&I Project Office Curtiss-Wright Controls DASD (SE) Mission Assurance Defense Acquisition University Defense Acquisition University Mid- West Defense Contract Management Agency Dept of Navy, ASN(RDA)CHSENG Design Interface And Maintenance Planning Division Detachment 5 AFOTEC Dindl Firearms Manufacturing, Inc. DISA/JITC DoD/MDA DON DOT&E/Institute for Defense Analyses DOT&E/OSD DRS-SSI DUSA-TE ECBC Engineering Directorate (RDCB- DEP-J) Edgewood Chemical Biological Center ESC/XRX, Hanscom AFB, MA Evolvent Technologies F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, US Navy GC2IT, LLC General Dynamics General Dynamics C4 Systems General Dynamics Land Systems HQAMC Institute for Defense Analyses ITT CORPORATION ITT Night Vision And Imaging JACOBS ENGINEERING CORP. Jacobs Technology, Inc. Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense Joint Program Manager for Protection (JPM P) Joint Project Manager for Collective Protection (Chem Bio) Joint Research and Development JPEO JTRS HMS T&E JPEO-CBD/JPM Protection JPM Protection KC-X Program Office ASC/WKP L-3 Communications System West Lambda Corporation Life Cycle Engineering LMI Lockheed Martin - Missiles & Fire Control Division Long Range Systems Division (AAC/EBJ) ManTech Systems Eng. & Adv.

Techn. Grp/NASA

MarCorSysCom MARCORSYSCOM, Product Group 12 Marine Corps Systems Command MCOTEA MDA THAAD Project Office MIDS JTRS Missile Defense Agency MITRE Corporation National Aeronautics and Space Administration Naval Sea Systems Command Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Northrop Grumman Corporation Division Naval Sea Systems Command Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) OSD CAPE OSD/DOT&E OTE, Navy PEO - LS G/ATOR PM Tactical Vehicles PM WIN-T PM-Soldier Warrior QinetiQ North America Raydon Corporation Raytheon Redstone Arsenal AMRDEC Reliability Information Analysis Center (RIAC) SAIC Sensis Corporation TARDEC Tinker Air Force Base TRADOC US Army Developmental Test Command US Army Space and Missile Defense Command US Marine Corp WILLCOR, Inc. ZRA

Model and tool requests from a broad customer base. Use of scorecard, PM2, and other tools strengthen reliability programs, reduce risk, and save money. Over 600 requests throughout government and industry from over 200

rganizations

SLIDE 17

16-Jun-13 17

Test Efficiency – Leveraging All Data

Test Data Posterior Distribution Updated Reliability Estimate Prior Distribution Likelihood Historical Data Modeling &Simulation Results Engineering Data Component/Subsystem Test Data

Reduce testing costs and duration by

leveraging all data sources ‒ Historical data ‒ Modeling & Simulation ‒ Engineering data ‒ Component/Subsystem test data

New process being used by Army major

program to substantially reduce program risk

Frequency

MTBF estimate = 150 hrs. 80% lower bound = 130 hrs.

MTBF = Mean Time Between Failure

Failure rate

Reduce Testing, Reduce Risk, Reduce Cost and Accelerate Fielding

SLIDE 18

 Reliability analyses can drive down acquisition and sustainment costs – Even better systems for Soldiers  AMSAA engaged across the Army and the Department of Defense to provide analytical solutions to the most challenging problems – AMSAA partners with numerous APG organizations to achieve success

16-Jun-13 18

Summary

Systems & Perf. Level Analysis

Perf. Data
Dev. & Certification

M&S/New Meth.

Dev. & VV&A

Tech/System Level Trade-Offs Physics-of-Failure Technology & Risk Assessment

AMSAA Analytical Capabilities … In Key Issue Areas … Support These Army Enterprise Efforts

Lethality Survivability Mobility Sensing Automotive Reliability Supportability Network

Concepts & Rqmts Analyses AOA’s & Other Force-Level Analyses Affordability & Cost-Perf. Trades Technology Base Investment Trades Test & Evaluation Reliability Improvement Programs Performance-Based Logistics

Commo

Business Case Analysis Fleet Health Assessments Supply Chain Analysis Organizational Analysis & Design

Prognostics Geo-Spatial Supply Chain

Fleet Management O&S Cost Reduction

Chem Demil