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

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.

david.e.mortin.civ@mail.mil

410.278.6248