Spc. Michelle Metzger, a motor transport operator with 1487th Transportation Company, Ohio Army National Guard, lubricates her vehicle.
Source: U.S. Army National Guard photo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Soldiers of Company A, 2nd Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 170th Infantry Brigade Combat Team.
Source: U.S. Army photo
History
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).
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.
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.
The advantages of forming AVPTA were that it:
- Creates a partnership with true collaboration to enhance national energy security
- Demonstrates federal leadership
- Shares capabilities and access to resources
- Accelerates technology development
- Drives innovation
- Increases the value of research investments
- Addresses national energy needs
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).
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):
- Advanced combustion engines and transmissions
- Lightweight structures and materials
- Energy recovery and thermal management
- Alternative fuels and lubricants
- Hybrid propulsion systems
- (including batteries/energy storage)
- Analytical tools
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.
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.
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.
Structure
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Challenges
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.
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.
Examples of Successful AVPTA Projects
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.
Lightweight Structures and Materials
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 1. Examples of Commercial and Military Vehicle Similarities
| Goals |
Materials |
Applications |
Manufacturing Processes |
- Reduce fuel usage
- Reduce vehicle weight
|
- Advanced High Strength Steels
- Aluminum
- Composites
|
- Vehicle structure
- Diesel Engines
- Advanced Batteries
- Energy Storage
|
- Welding (Friction stir welding, MIG, TIG)
- Multi-material joining
- Forming
- Casting
|
Table 2. Examples of Differences Between Commercial and Military Vehicles
| Characteristic |
Commercial |
Military |
| Fuels |
Gasoline |
JP-8 |
| Vehicle Weight |
2 tons |
Over 70 tons (tank) |
| Materials |
Thin sheet metal |
Thick armor |
| Volume |
High volume |
Low volume |
| Built to Withstand |
Crash |
Blast, Ballistic |
Source: U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center
Alternative Fuels and Lubricants
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.
Energy Storage and Batteries
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.
Electrified Propulsion Systems
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.
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.
Successes
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.
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.
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.
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.
Summary
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.
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.
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.
Acknowledgments
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.
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.
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.
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.
The authors can be contacted through
jean.m.dasch.ctr@army.mil or
david.j.gorsich.civ@army.mil.
DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. OPSEC #5155.
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.
