| Test and Evaluation - Where the Rubber Meets the Road in Digital Engineering | | https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/Lists/Blog/DispForm.aspx?ID=255 | Test and Evaluation - Where the Rubber Meets the Road in Digital Engineering | 2021-12-15T17:00:00Z | https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcqNov-Dec21_banner002.jpg, https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcqNov-Dec21_banner002.jpg
https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcqNov-Dec21_banner002.jpg | <div class="ExternalClassA0A3E88D0FFF47B799A4936AFE37B7EA">“Accelerate change, or lose” is an imperative for the Department of Defense (DoD) if we expect to counter our competitors’ rapid development pipelines. Accelerating change isn’t about a change in mindset—after all, we’ve been trying to go faster for decades—it’s about the need for a true transformation in the way DoD buys things.<br>
<br>
The key to delivering capabilities at the speed of relevance for our future force is the use of integrated digital ecosystems to design, test, and modernize systems. The elements of this integrated digital ecosystem—the “digital trinity” of digital engineering, agile software, and open systems architecture—are spelled out by Dr. Will Roper, former Air Force Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in Bending the Spoon: Guidebook for Digital Engineering and e-Series (inspired by the film The Matrix. See guidebook <a href="https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2021SAF/01_Jan/Bending_the_Spoon.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>). Although there is a role for test and evaluation (T&E) in all three legs of the digital trinity, our largest impact is on digital engineering, where we are a provider of data used to validate and update system models and simulations.<br>
<br>
Digital engineering is about more than just digitizing traditional test processes and products such as test plans and reports. Instead, digital engineering requires us to think digitally from the beginning of a program: How does the test community contribute to developing and maintaining a system’s “digital twin”? This is a fundamentally different problem than the traditional T&E question of “How well does this system work?” Digital engineering requires the T&E community to shift our mindset from providing data that supports decision making at discrete intervals to a mindset of providing a knowledge base as an authoritative source of truth (ASOT). The ASOT validates and updates the digital twin in a continuous evaluation process throughout the life cycle of a system.<br>
<br>
Let us demonstrate how this paradigm shift in T&E can work. We first set the stage by briefly discussing what digital engineering is trying to achieve within the larger acquisition process. We then articulate the T&E community’s role in that process through continuous evaluation, uncertainty reduction, and rapid feedback. Finally, we describe current Air Force Test Center (AFTC) efforts to embrace digital engineering.
<h2>A Quick Introduction to Digital Engineering</h2>
The vision of digital engineering is the digital twin: models, simulations, and digital environments so good that they accurately replicate complex systems before anything is physically built. The comprehensive virtual environment just described will allow designers to massively iterate all aspects of a system’s life cycle without the shackles of real-world issues such as runtime, risk, and cost. To implement this vision, the Air Force has fully embraced the five goals in <a href="https://man.fas.org/eprint/digeng-2018.pdf" target="_blank">DoD’s Digital Engineering Strategy</a>:
<ol>
<li>Formalize the development, integration and use of models.</li>
<li>Provide an authoritative source of truth.</li>
<li>Incorporate technological innovation.</li>
<li>Establish infrastructure and environments.</li>
<li>Transform the culture/workforce.</li>
</ol>
The Air Force guide There is No Spoon: The New Digital Acquisition Reality explains that digital acquisition is about more than just building better systems; it’s about building systems better and allowing the acquisition community to design faster, enable seamless assembly, test more efficiently and effectively, and provide easier upgrades to maintain our competitive edge. But how will we decide when a model becomes so realistic that we accept it as a complete substitute for reality? The answer: when you have real-world data that anchors your models; otherwise, you have nothing but a fancy video game. And that real-world data comes from T&E, whether conducted in a pristine laboratory setting or on a complex open air range (OAR).<br>
<br>
Formula 1 (F1) racing provides a good example of digital engineering. In his January 2021 Popular Mechanics article “Exclusive: The Air Force’s Secret New Fighter Jet Uses F1-Syle Engineering,” Dr. Roper wrote, “[In F1 racing] there are no physical prototypes today. Every car feature and all physics governing it—even the rubber literally meeting the road—is painstakingly virtualized and anchored by authoritative test data (emphasis added).” But even without prototypes, F1 designers still collect plenty of physical data—they just do it on the real race car after it hits the track (or in wind tunnels akin to those the AFTC operates at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex). And the data collected on the real car is fed forward into real-time tweaks of the existing car and improvements for the next model. For military applications, the operating environment is much more complex and changes more rapidly than an F1 racetrack, but the same principles of continuous and rapid improvement apply, as long as the digital twin and its environment are grounded in real-world data.
<h2>Digital Engineering/Role of T&E</h2>
As a provider of the authoritative source of truth, T&E is at the center of digital engineering. The knowledge gained through T&E is critical for the continuous evaluation, uncertainty reduction, and rapid feedback necessary to develop and deliver a better product faster than our competitors. The specifics of the role of T&E are outlined in the “Digital Building Code for Digital Engineering” released in May 2021 by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The overall guidance and relationship to items specific to T&E are summarized in the table below.<br>
<br>
In the future, the test enterprise will work with program offices to marry the digital twin with the physical system design via the design, test, and validate process. T&E must be integrated with the larger digital engineering campaign to validate technical models that provide baselines for weapons system life-cycle sustainment.<br>
<br>
In a typical design-test-validate cycle, physical system models are used to provide initial estimates of system performance. Data collected during tests in various environments—such as installed system test facilities or open-air ranges—demonstrate actual system performance and is fed back into the modeling process to validate or update models. These validated models then form the basis for refining system designs or informing other modeling and simulation requirements, such as determining how system performance contributes to mission and campaign-level effectiveness.
<hr />
<table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" style="width:500px;">
<caption>Table 1. Overall Guidance and T&E Specifics</caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col">Blueprint Element</th>
<th scope="col">T&E-Related Guidance</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>1. Develop digital models of systems</td>
<td>1.3 Clearly link [model] requirements to planned verification activities (e.g., technical reviews, certification, testing plans, procedures).<br>
1.5 Include capabilities to predict operational performance and quantify uncertainty in models of a system or subsystem in a simulated, representative environment.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2. Develop a digital twin and digital thread</td>
<td>2.1 Establish and manage a digital thread that links models and digital artifacts and creates an authoritative source of truth. Update digital artifacts throughout the system life cycle to maintain a digital twin of the system.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3. Implement an integrated digital environment (IDE)</td>
<td>3.1 An IDE is a compilation of data, models, and tools for collaboration, analysis, and visualization across functional domains.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4. Employ a tailored digital strategy for contracting with industry</td>
<td>To be determined—guidance is rapidly evolving, but in general, T&E requires access to contractor models and data</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5. Ensure organizational readiness for Digital Engineering</td>
<td>5.1 Access to tools and infrastructure, including SysML-based tools, CloudONE and PlatformONE services, DevSecOps processes, and applicable modeling techniques for applications such as structures, design/analysis, embedded software, electronics, and other disciplines as appropriate.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6. Implement Digital Acquisition</td>
<td>6.1 All acquisition plans, program and technical reviews, and testing and certification processes will shift from a fundamentally document-based construct to one based on models and digital artifacts. This includes the T&E Master Plan.<br>
6.1.5 The developmental and operational test communities should engage early to determine strategy and planning for employing model-based T&E activities. Verification and validation of models is critical to achieving authoritative virtualizations of systems.<span style="display:none;"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h6>Source: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.</h6>
<hr /> We envision that the data collected, across all phases of T&E, in the future will be more widely available as one component of an authoritative data source that is fed into, and managed by, an enterprise data management system used to validate and update a system’s digital twin. Using models throughout the life cycle to digitally represent the system of interest in the virtual world requires a continuous evaluation process such as that shown in Figure 1. This process generates the authoritative source of truth that determines system requirements, aids acquisition decision-making, and matures robust operational tactics, techniques, and procedures.<br>
<br>
As illustrated by Figure 2, T&E also adds value to the interface between digital tools by sharing authoritative source data from tests and models, validating models, and integrating data sets up and down the Systems Engineering “V.” This minimizes duplication and increases consistency. T&E takes requirements and data from a system’s digital twin and tests the models, prototypes, and physical articles to provide performance data to support the digital twin’s verification, validation, and accreditation.
<h2>AFTC Digital Engineering Initiatives</h2>
A few years ago, the AFTC experienced what we now call digital engineering “in the small” and “in reverse.” In 2016 and 2017, two AFTC units—the 412th Test Wing at Edwards Air Force Base, California, and the Arnold Engineering Development Complex at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee—tested the climb performance of a commercial off-the-shelf T-53A aircraft modified with a new propeller. Since no government-owned models or data existed, the two AFTC units collaborated to develop high-fidelity aircraft models from scratch by beginning with a scan of the physical aircraft. Using the model-test-validate approach depicted in Figure 3, the test team then validated the digital model and used the model to accurately predict rate-of-climb performance. In addition to addressing the program manager’s concerns, the digital model also can be used, if desired, to update aircraft performance information in the manuals that pilots use for planning flights. Although the program was small in scope, it showed the incredible promise of digital engineering as a concept, and the central role T&E plays in it.<br>
<br>
<img alt="Figure 1. Models and Continuous Evaluation" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Nov-Dec_2021/DefAcqNov-Dec21_article2_figure1.jpg" style="width:100%;" /><br>
<br>
The next section highlights a few corporately sustained, recognized, and viable capabilities essential in the generation of good models to support Air Force processes as authoritative source data from within the Air Force. First, let’s look at the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE), and its physical counterpart, the Multi-Domain Test Force (MDTF). Next, we will discuss a few targeted efforts within the MDTF portfolio and the deep-learning analytics (machine learning data fusion) critical for authoritative decision making and model accreditation. Through these efforts, T&E is transforming itself and fostering digital engineering in the conduct of evaluations in more integrated (and virtual) environments.<br>
<br>
Just like in the race car world, the JSE represents the digital track in the virtual world—the operational environment’s digital twin. The JSE is being developed as a high-fidelity simulation using aircraft operational flight program software. The environment can be accredited for a test as a supplement to the traditional OAR. JSE’s three goals are to do the following:
<ol>
<li>Perform developmental and operational activities, especially those that cannot be performed on an OAR.</li>
<li>Conduct high-end advanced training and tactics.</li>
<li>Support experimentation of future weapon systems, warfighting, and employment concepts.</li>
</ol>
Just as T&E is the process by which the digital twin is married to the physical design, JSE is marrying a digital range to the OAR environment. The JSE enables high density, high-end threat replication and allows for a better test of fifth- and sixth-generation aircraft and weapon capabilities. It is a scalable, open architecture environment that integrates live, virtual, and constructive models. It is government-owned and operates as a multi-domain battlespace environment—a virtual test and training range. JSE enables a continuous development and delivery pipeline with common models and analysis tools and current threat data that operates in multi-level security environments. To sum up, JSE gives programs the ability to robustly test models on a validated digital test range, against a representative threat, before bending metal.<br>
<br>
<img alt="Figure 2. T&E’s Multiple Interfaces in Program Management" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Nov-Dec_2021/DefAcqNov-Dec21_article2_figure2.jpg" style="width:100%;" /><br>
<br>
The MDTF functions as the integrative and administrative hub for test programs to accelerate change in the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) environment. The MDTF integrates the teams and resources currently used to execute Orange and Emerald Flag test events, JADC2 demonstrations, and other test events in the open-air environment. Orange Flag started three years ago to assess the integration of warfighting systems in a dense threat, operationally representative environment to identify and analyze kill-chain strengths and weaknesses with a data-driven approach.<br>
<br>
Similarly, Emerald Flag is a collaborative multi-Service effort focused on increasing the joint domain Warfighter’s effectiveness, incorporating ground, space, cyberspace, and air platforms to improve information speed and flow. Orange Flag, Emerald Flag, and the U.S. Air Force Warfare Center’s 53rd Wing’s Black Flag work in concert as a test triad to provide robust test environments supporting JADC2, advanced battle management system, and validation of new tactics and technologies for the warfighting force.<br>
<br>
<img alt="Figure 3. The Model-Test-Validate Approach" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Nov-Dec_2021/DefAcqNov-Dec21_article2_figure3.jpg" style="width:100%;" /><br>
<br>
The synergistic goals of JSE and the MDTF enable continuous evaluation and rapid feedback. That synergism is essential in a digital engineering world where engineers will use MDTF test event data to validate the digital range of the JSE, and the JSE will augment tests that cannot execute in the OAR. The integrated developmental and operational test environments are essential in accelerated combat capability fielding, and JSE and MDTF form a circle of verification that is indispensable to model validation at program offices.<br>
<br>
Continuous evaluation that reduces uncertainty, drives value-added test events, and rapidly integrates T&E across the life cycle, requires the ability to integrate data sets up and down the Systems Engineering “V.” Therefore, the Air Force T&E community is developing machine learning fusion models that blend data from multiple sources to create more accurate models. Those data sources can be manufacturing and component-level testing (like the National Radar Test Facility and Wind Tunnels), hardware in the loop facilities (like the Guided Weapons Evaluation Facility), installed system test facilities (like the Benefield Anechoic Facility), and open-air flight test. Machine learning will help quantify the uncertainty, improve model validation, and aid in transferring knowledge from a digital environment to the real world, or vice versa.
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
Digital engineering holds the promise to deliver better capabilities faster. But the need for trustworthy data lies at the heart of digital engineering. For digital engineering to fulfill its promise, T&E must be embraced as the authoritative source of truth. T&E is no longer just a data source for validating individual models and evaluating system performance; it’s the knowledge source necessary to validate, calibrate, and improve the digital twin through continuous evaluation.
<hr />Bjorkman is the Executive Director of the Air Force Test Center (AFTC) at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Her role involves long- and short-range planning, policy development, determination of program and center goals, and overall management of the AFTC. She has a doctorate in Systems Engineering from George Washington University and a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science from the University of Washington and a bachelor’s degree in Aeronautical Engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT).<br>
<br>
Grigaliunas is the AFTC Technical Advisor for Flight Test and Evaluation on airframe, avionics/cyber, propulsion, electronic warfare flight, and supporting ground test capabilities. He holds a master’s degree in Systems Engineering from AFIT and a bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.<br>
<br>
The authors can be contacted at <a class="ak-cke-href" href="mailto:eileen.bjorkman.1@us.af.mil">eileen.bjorkman.1@us.af.mil</a> and <a class="ak-cke-href" href="mailto:john.grigaliunas@us.af.mil">john.grigaliunas@us.af.mil</a>.<br>
<br>
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and not of the Department of Defense. Reproduction or reposting of articles from Defense Acquisition magazine should credit the authors and the magazine.
<hr /><a href="https://ctt.ac/go17q" target="_blank"><img alt="tweet" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Sept-Oct_2021/tweetbutton.jpg" style="width:125px;height:50px;border-width:0px;border-style:solid;" /></a><a href="https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=RL4hHDUkv0m8H8ujFxhwWKL1MkZ9ijlJn6eDW2eiPulURThIUzNNN1VaVFRPMzhaTkNHTkMxODE1Ri4u" target="_blank"><img alt="subscribe" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Sept-Oct_2021/suscribebutton.jpg" style="width:125px;height:50px;border-width:0px;border-style:solid;" /></a></div> | string;#/library/defense-atl/blog/Test-and-Evaluation | | | | | | | |
| The Advanced Vehicle Power Technology Alliance — a Successful Interagency Collaboration | | https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/Lists/Blog/DispForm.aspx?ID=257 | The Advanced Vehicle Power Technology Alliance — a Successful Interagency Collaboration | 2021-12-08T17:00:00Z | https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcqNov-Dec21_banner04.jpg, https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcqNov-Dec21_banner04.jpg
https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcqNov-Dec21_banner04.jpg | <div class="ExternalClassFB9F2D6AA9544691BA091A1FDC17964D"><img alt="Spc. Michelle Metzger, a motor transport operator with 1487th Transportation Company, Ohio Army National Guard, lubricates her vehicle." src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Nov-Dec_2021/DefAcqNov-Dec21_article4_image01.jpg" style="border-width:0px;border-style:solid;margin-left:5px;margin-right:5px;width:50%;" />
<h6>Spc. Michelle Metzger, a motor transport operator with 1487th Transportation Company, Ohio Army National Guard, lubricates her vehicle.<br>
Source: U.S. Army National Guard photo.</h6>
<hr />The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DoD) have long been involved in significant research in energy use reduction for commercial and military vehicles, respectively. In 2010, the two departments formed the Advanced Vehicle Power Technology Alliance (AVPTA) to co-fund research of value to both partners.<br>
<br>
Great effort went into developing a charter including the guidelines and structure of AVPTA, which has now existed for a decade and is considered a model for such relationships. This article examines the history of AVPTA, the technical areas covered, and the issues involved with interagency collaboration.<br>
DOE has had many successful programs with the commercial automotive industry. The United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR), formed in 1992, has worked closely with the DOE. That collaboration spawned many programs, such as a Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles in 1993 and the 21st Century Truck Partnership in 2000.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, DoD was addressing issues for military vehicles similar to those DOE addressed for commercial vehicles. But there was no structure for sharing information and leveraging their combined resources. This led to the DoD and DOE decision to form AVPTA. Many lessons have been learned and problems overcome throughout AVPTA’s formation and existence. Although there were many similarities in the need for improved fuel economy, there also were significant differences between commercial and military requirements. AVPTA’s challenge, in part, was to sort out these differences and select areas of common interest and goals.<br>
<br>
<img alt="Soldiers of Company A, 2nd Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 170th Infantry Brigade Combat Team." src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Nov-Dec_2021/DefAcqNov-Dec21_article4_image02.jpg" style="width:50%;" />
<h6>Soldiers of Company A, 2nd Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 170th Infantry Brigade Combat Team.<br>
Source: U.S. Army photo</h6>
<hr />
<h3>History</h3>
The auto industry had significant structured interactions with DOE, whereas the military’s interactions with the DOE were mostly ad hoc and uncoordinated. Yet both groups—the DOE in cooperation with the commercial auto industry and DoD primarily through the Army—were strongly motivated to significantly reduce fuel consumption. The commercial auto industry had to meet increasingly stringent fuel economy standards (or CAFE—Corporate Average Fuel Economy).<br>
Although the military did not have to meet CAFE standards, DoD operates the world’s largest fleet of vehicles, about 470,000 at the start of AVPTA—58 percent tactical transport and 42 percent combat vehicles. The burdened fuel cost during conflict was about 5 times the commodity price for a total of $30 billion in 2010. More than 70 percent of the cargo shipped in convoys was fuel and water and 18 percent of U.S. casualties were related to convoy resupply.<br>
<br>
The DoD Quadrennial Defense Review in 2010 made two points that related to this discussion: the need for a strategic approach to reduce energy consumption and for strengthened interagency partnerships. This eventually led to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the DOE and DoD titled “Concerning Cooperation in a Strategic Partnership to Enhance Energy Security” signed July 22, 2010, by Deputy Secretaries of Energy Daniel B. Poneman and Defense William J. Lynn III. This was the first official document for formation of AVPTA. It acknowledged that the DOE was the lead federal agency for developing and deploying advanced energy technologies and that DoD needed to invest in many of the same technologies.<br>
<br>
The advantages of forming AVPTA were that it:
<ul>
<li><em>Creates a partnership with true collaboration to enhance national energy security</em></li>
<li><em>Demonstrates federal leadership</em></li>
<li><em>Shares capabilities and access to resources</em></li>
<li><em>Accelerates technology development</em></li>
<li><em>Drives innovation</em></li>
<li><em>Increases the value of research investments</em></li>
<li><em>Addresses national energy needs</em></li>
</ul>
With the MOU in place, work began to develop a framework for AVPTA, culminating in a workshop, July 18–20, 2011. The Detroit workshop was attended by the Michigan Congressional Delegation and senior executives and subject-matter experts from industry and academia. The lead organizations were the Army’s Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC)—formerly the Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center—and the DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO).<br>
<br>
A five-year charter was written and signed on July 18, 2011, by Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu and Under Secretary of the Army Dr. Joseph W. Westphal. The charter laid out a general framework for AVPTA and specifically outlined six Technical Focus Areas (TFAs):
<ul>
<li><em>Advanced combustion engines and transmissions</em></li>
<li><em>Lightweight structures and materials </em></li>
<li><em>Energy recovery and thermal management </em></li>
<li><em>Alternative fuels and lubricants </em></li>
<li><em>Hybrid propulsion systems</em></li>
<li><em>(including batteries/energy storage)</em></li>
<li><em>Analytical tools </em></li>
</ul>
The 2011 workshop began with VIP briefings on the critical energy needs of the U.S. military and industry, including presentations by Sen. Carl Levin, Dr. Chu, Dr. Westphal, General Motors Vice President Dr. Alan Taub, GVSC Director Dr. Grace Bochenek, and DOE Program Manager Mr. Patrick Davis.<br>
<br>
After the general session, the technical experts broke into six working groups to cover the six TFAs. At a high level, DoD and DOE strategic goals and strategic drivers, or dominant concerns, were delineated. In some cases, they were very similar, such as the goal of reducing fuel usage. Sometimes, they diverged, as in the case of the DoD driver to lighten logistics requirements in order to save lives.<br>
<br>
Eventually, the TFAs expanded to seven with batteries and energy storage separating from hybrid propulsion systems. A technical lead was assigned from each agency for each of the seven TFAs. The two leads for each area developed a coordination plan, including opportunities for joint meetings, project integration, and possible joint endeavors.
<h3>Structure</h3>
Despite the strong start, it took time to develop a viable working structure. In the first phase, DOE’s VTO and the Army lab, GVSC, identified already established projects of mutual interest. These projects were upgraded with additional subject-matter experts and resources. By 2013, new projects of mutual interest to the Army and DOE were being initiated.<br>
<br>
The TFAs that were delineated in the 2011 Charter continued throughout with relatively few changes (Figure 1). Typically, there would be about 30 subprojects each year divided among the seven areas. The most active TFAs with the most subprojects were lightweight structures and materials, alternative fuels and lubricants, and energy storage and batteries.<br>
<br>
A new category labeled “Extended Enterprise” was added in Fiscal Year 2017 and included projects technically “endorsed” by DOE, but not directly aligned with its Funding Opportunities Announcement Areas of Interest. GVSC funded the projects, but DOE representatives had access to the meetings and received technical reports. The Extended Enterprise projects centered on fuel cells and a lightweight steel-aluminum alloy, FeMnAl.<br>
<br>
GVSC subject-matter experts were invited to attend the VTO Annual Merit Review during which GVSC personnel were exposed to the complete VTO project portfolio while participating as review panel members. Joint participation in the review helped to identify areas of mutual technical interest for future new-start projects.<br>
<br>
A proposed new project needed the approval of both parties, DOE’s VTO and the Army’s GVSC, to become an active AVPTA project. GVSC had a very rigorous internal project review-approval process to initiate a new project. A technical council was briefed by subject-matter experts proposing the projects. Each project had to have an identifiable path to deployment with an accompanying timeline, and a work product consistent with GVSC’s 30-year strategy. There then followed an AVPTA new-start project review and selection process during the VTO’s annual project selection meeting, jointly attended by GVSC and VTO directors and subject-matter experts. Selected projects were publicized based upon VTO’s annual process and timeline for Advanced Vehicle Technologies Research Funding Opportunity Announcements.<br>
<br>
The approval process leveraged DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory Contract Office to rapidly obligate and efficiently track project funding by individual performers. Selected investigators came from auto companies, auto suppliers, defense industry original equipment manufacturers and suppliers, DOE National Laboratories, universities and colleges, and other businesses. Millions of dollars were jointly contributed to AVPTA, with a resulting level of effort and output that neither agency would have realized alone.<br>
<br>
<img alt="Figure 1. Project Areas at the Start of Alliance" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Nov-Dec_2021/DefAcqNov-Dec21_article4_figure01.jpg" style="width:100%;" />
<h3>Challenges</h3>
As the MOU and charter were being written, there was an obvious common goal of reducing energy usage by ground vehicles. But as the participants began developing project ideas, they also found obvious major differences between the commercial market and military vehicles. Figure 2 shows the divergent paths for commercial and military in fuel economy, emissions, and electrical power. The industry drivers are emissions, CAFE, and profit. The Army drivers, or dominant concerns, are survivability, mobility, lethality, and operational energy. Even the fuel mixes are different, commercial gasoline and diesel versus military jet fuel.<br>
<br>
As shown in Table 1, the goals, materials, applications, and manufacturing processes are similar in the commercial and military markets, but as shown in Table 2, significant differences are in play. Developing mutually beneficial programs required a detailed understanding of the technologies and constant coordination between the subject-matter experts to ensure maximum benefit to both organizations.
<h3>Examples of Successful AVPTA Projects</h3>
Numerous research projects were initiated and conducted under AVPTA’s umbrella. Some examples are provided below, showing the diversity, depth, and breadth of the projects.<br>
<br>
<img alt="Figure 2. Divergent Paths of Commercial Industry and Military" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Nov-Dec_2021/DefAcqNov-Dec21_article4_figure02.jpg" style="width:100%;" /><br>
<br>
<strong>Lightweight Structures and Materials</strong><br>
This TFA was probably the most active of all the groups, and it advanced this research area at GVSC far beyond where it started. A primary challenge was to accomplish dissimilar metal joining, specifically to join a ferrous material (high-strength steel or rolled homogeneous armor) to aluminum. The two metals have very different melting points, so traditional welding is difficult. This is even more difficult when thick sections are used, as required for military vehicles. One group from Pacific Northwest developed a successful method known as friction stir dovetailing, which employs a special tool with a spinning head that generates enough friction to heat and form aluminum into a dovetail that fits into a mechanically cut dovetail groove in a piece of steel.
<table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" style="width:500px;">
<caption>Table 1. Examples of Commercial and Military Vehicle Similarities</caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col">Goals</th>
<th scope="col">Materials</th>
<th scope="col">Applications</th>
<th scope="col">Manufacturing Processes</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<ul>
<li>Reduce fuel usage</li>
<li>Reduce vehicle weight</li>
</ul>
</td>
<td>
<ul>
<li>Advanced High Strength Steels</li>
<li>Aluminum</li>
<li>Composites</li>
</ul>
</td>
<td>
<ul>
<li>Vehicle structure</li>
<li>Diesel Engines</li>
<li>Advanced Batteries</li>
<li>Energy Storage</li>
</ul>
</td>
<td>
<ul>
<li>Welding (Friction stir welding, MIG, TIG)</li>
<li>Multi-material joining</li>
<li>Forming</li>
<li>Casting</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" style="width:500px;">
<caption>Table 2. Examples of Differences Between Commercial and Military Vehicles</caption>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:center;"><strong><em>Characteristic</em></strong></td>
<td style="text-align:center;"><strong>Commercial</strong></td>
<td style="text-align:center;"><strong>Military</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:center;"><strong><em>Fuels</em></strong></td>
<td style="text-align:center;">Gasoline</td>
<td style="text-align:center;">JP-8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:center;"><strong><em>Vehicle Weight</em></strong></td>
<td style="text-align:center;">2 tons</td>
<td style="text-align:center;">Over 70 tons (tank)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:center;"><strong><em>Materials</em></strong></td>
<td style="text-align:center;">Thin sheet metal</td>
<td style="text-align:center;">Thick armor</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:center;"><strong><em>Volume</em></strong></td>
<td style="text-align:center;">High volume</td>
<td style="text-align:center;">Low volume</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:center;"><strong><em>Built to Withstand</em></strong></td>
<td style="text-align:center;">Crash</td>
<td style="text-align:center;">Blast, Ballistic</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h6>Source: U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center</h6>
<br>
<strong>Alternative Fuels and Lubricants</strong><br>
This TFA funded several groups to improve fuel efficiency through friction reduction using various methods, such as lubricant formulation, lubricant delivery, and surface treatment of engine parts. Methods also were developed to measure and predict the relationship of friction to fuel economy. The investigators came from a range of organizations including George Washington University, Northwestern University, Ford Motor Company, Valvoline Inc., and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The goal was to improve fuel economy by 2 percent, and the various efforts were successful.<br>
<br>
<strong>Energy Storage and Batteries </strong><br>
DOE had an ongoing project with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) titled “Computer-Aided Engineering for Electric-Drive Vehicle Batteries” or CAEBAT. GVSC joined the effort through AVPTA in 2013 with the aim of using computer-aided engineering to accelerate the development of Li-ion battery systems for military vehicles while reducing the need for expensive, time-consuming physical testing. Through CAEBAT, numerical design tools were developed to optimize batteries for improved performance, safety, long life, and low cost. The CAEBAT program allowed GVSC to leverage about $20 million in DOE investments.<br>
<br>
<strong>Electrified Propulsion Systems </strong><br>
Due to energy and environmental concerns, electric propulsion systems are becoming more common and are the subjects of continuing research. One part of an electric system is the integrated starter-generator (ISG), which replaces the starter and alternator in a single electric device.<br>
GVSC led a project to replace traditional ISGs with ones that don’t require rare-earth magnets. The primary source of rare earths is China, and the supply is subject to disruption. This project aimed to use different types of magnets or even eliminate permanent magnets. GVSC, in cooperation with the University of Akron and DCS Corporation, completed the design, building, and testing of a Switched Reluctance Machine (SRM) that was superior to other non-rare-earth devices. The groups reduced the torque ripple and acoustic noise, common problems in non-rare-earth systems.
<h3>Successes</h3>
In many cases, internal projects at DOE or GVSC were successful enough to expand to both organizations through AVPTA. One example was an internal GVSC Innovation Project on Engine Combustion Chamber Design. This evolved into an AVPTA project titled “Physics-Based Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Sub-Model Development” to develop more accurate sub-models for the processes within the combustion chamber. An impressive array of scientists from eight different universities worked on the project, each working on a different sub-model: The University of Alabama, Boston University, Georgia Tech, University of Wisconsin, Michigan Technological University, Ohio State, Penn State, and the University of Illinois.<br>
<br>
In July 2014, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz wrote Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, seeking to explore major new collaborative efforts. As a result, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Operational Energy Plans and Programs (OSD/OEPP) proposed a significantly expanded program for more energy-efficient ground vehicles, called “Increasing the Fuel Efficiency of the Current Ground Tactical Fleet” (IFECGTF). The plan was to build on and strengthen existing AVPTA relationships, program, and funding. The program was awarded to GVSC by OSD/OEPP in April 2015. Approximately $25 million of 2015 Operational Energy Capabilities Improvement Funds (OECIF) was allocated for four diverse IFECGTF projects: JP-8 Based Fuel Cell Power; Tactical Vehicle Electrification Kit; Flame Spray Coating for Piston Friction Reduction; and Autonomy to Increase the Fuel Efficiency of Tactical Vehicles.<br>
<br>
As shown above, there are many benefits to interagency programs. Resources can be leveraged on common problems and money isn’t wasted on duplicating others’ research. Research issues can be considered from a different point of view, which can be illuminating and help drive innovation.<br>
<br>
But investments in time and resources are needed to achieve these benefits. Developing programs of mutual benefit requires a solid understanding of the operational requirements for each situation and a decision about whether cooperation even makes sense. Buy-in from high levels is needed to show the importance of the partnership and to secure funding. An organizational structure must be built; official documents such as MOUs and charters need to be developed. After the guidelines are in place to initiate the partnership, internal structures at both agencies must be reorganized to manage the Alliance. At GVSC, one person worked full time on the AVPTA administration. Seven other subject-matter experts were responsible for coordinating with DOE VTO counterparts in charge of the Technical Focus Areas. Each of the 20 to 30 projects per year had at least one GVSC person administering or contributing to it.
<h3>Summary</h3>
In 2016, the original AVPTA charter was renewed/extended for five additional years. A third charter for five more years is in the planning stages.<br>
AVPTA is an interagency cooperation success, in view of the impressive number of publications and patents generated through the program and the costs reduced by leveraging the benefits of cooperation. Between 2011 and 2020, DOE and the Army contributed a total of $150 million toward jointly funded AVPTA projects. These results could not have been achieved by either agency on its own.<br>
<br>
After 10 years, the benefits of the collaboration have far outweighed the investments in time and resources. Former Assistant Secretary of the Army Katherine Hammack commented that AVPTA has far exceeded all expectations for technical performance and has become the reference model for interagency collaboration.
<h3>Acknowledgments</h3>
Thanks are due to the following associates from GVSC, who generously shared their knowledge about AVPTA: Richard Gerth, Jay Dusenbury, Steve Thrush, Allen Comfort, Kevin Centeck, and Brad Brumm. GVSC would also like to acknowledge DOE’s Vehicle Technology Office for its part in ensuring the success of AVPTA—particularly Patrick Davis, Michael Berube, and Gurpreet Singh.
<hr />
<h3><a href="https://www.dvidshub.net/video/318727/aab-2014-fuel-efficiency-ground-vehicle-demonstrator-video-ssg-bobby-statum"><strong>See related GVSC video from U.S. Army</strong></a></h3>
<hr />Gorsich is the Chief Scientist for the U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC) as well as the U.S. Army Scientific and Professional Chief for Ground Vehicles. He obtained his Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics from MIT.<br>
<br>
SCHRAMM is a Senior Collaboration Specialist for the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR). Previously, he worked for GVSC where he managed the AVPTA program until 2019. He has a master’s degee in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin.<br>
<br>
Dasch is a Principal Scientist for Alion Science and Technology and has worked at GVSC for 10 years for the Chief Scientist. She has a Ph.D. in Nuclear and Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Maryland.<br>
<br>
The authors can be contacted through <a class="ak-cke-href" href="mailto:jean.m.dasch.ctr@army.mil">jean.m.dasch.ctr@army.mil</a> or <a class="ak-cke-href" href="mailto:david.j.gorsich.civ@army.mil">david.j.gorsich.civ@army.mil</a>.
<hr />
<h5>DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. OPSEC #5155.<br>
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and not of the Department of Defense. Reproduction or reposting of articles from Defense Acquisition magazine should credit the authors and the magazine.</h5>
<hr /><a href="https://ctt.ac/_q24m" target="_blank"><img alt="tweet" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Sept-Oct_2021/tweetbutton.jpg" style="width:125px;height:50px;border-width:0px;border-style:solid;" /></a><a href="https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=RL4hHDUkv0m8H8ujFxhwWKL1MkZ9ijlJn6eDW2eiPulURThIUzNNN1VaVFRPMzhaTkNHTkMxODE1Ri4u" target="_blank"><img alt="subscribe" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Sept-Oct_2021/suscribebutton.jpg" style="width:125px;height:50px;border-width:0px;border-style:solid;" /></a></div> | string;#/library/defense-atl/blog/Advanced-Vehicle-Power-Technology-Alliance | | | | | | | |
