Making Army Systems More Reliable for our Soldiers and ... · Executive" magazine May 15, 2006 From...
Transcript of Making Army Systems More Reliable for our Soldiers and ... · Executive" magazine May 15, 2006 From...
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
410.278.6248
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
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
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
16-Jun-13 5
Reliability Even More Challenging in the Army
Environment
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
16-Jun-13 7
80
114
175
215
220
CAP1
CAP2
CAP3
CAP4
0
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
Reli
ab
ilit
y (T
ime t
o F
ail
ure
)
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
RE
SU
LT
S
TESTING • Basis of all PoF Efforts
• Work with testers to get
the most out of each test
• Ensure analysis-driven
data collection
RESULTS
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
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
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
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
Mag
nitu
de (
g2 /H
z)
Frequency (Hz)
Averaged PSD ComparisonAPU Bottom
Without Beams (rms = 0.31)
With Beams (rms = 0.32)
Input: Munson Test CoursesDelta F: 0.98 HzBlock Size: 2048Windowing: Hann
0.01
0.1
1
10
1 10 100 1000
Fati
gue
Dam
age
Rat
io
Frequency (Hz)
Configuration Comparison Using Fatigue Damage RatioWith 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
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
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
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
of test procedures
– e.g., Beyond safety
limits
• Lowers program costs
because less physical
testing needed
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
organizations
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
Fre
qu
en
cy
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
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
Let us know if we can help
David E. Mortin, Ph.D.
410.278.6248