Using System-of-Systems Simulation Modeling and Analysis to Measure Energy KPP Impacts for Brigade Combat Team Missions

Transcription

1 Using System-of-Systems Simulation Modeling and Analysis to Measure Energy KPP Impacts for Brigade Combat Team Missions June 2010 Kimberly M. Welch Sandia National Laboratories Jessica Kerper Sandia National Laboratories Craig Lawton Sandia National Laboratories Sandia is a multi-program laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy under contract DE-AC04-94AL

2 Briefing Outline Motivation for Military Energy Accountability Energy metrics for Military Systems Modeling and Analysis capability and Energy example 2

3 U.S. Marine Corps (Kelly R. Chase) Motivation for Energy Requirement In 2006 and 2007, the Department spent $26 billion per year on energy, and in 2008 requested an additional $5 billion on top to offset higher prices. Each $10 per barrel price increase in oil costs DOD over $1.3 billion per year. 1 About half of current casualties in theater are associated with convoys 3 U.S. Marine Corps (Kelly R. Chase) Logistics consumes roughly 1/2 of DOD personnel and a 1/3 of its budget 4 Energy is a National Security Issue 70% of the tonnage moved when the Army deploys is fuel and water 2 1 Mr. Chris DiPetto Deputy Director, Systems & Software Engineering, Energy Efficiency for Tactical Systems, November 8, Amory Lovins, RMI Helps the Department of Defense with Energy Policy. 3 Alan E. Haggerty, S&T and Maneuver Warfare: A Current Success and a Future Challenge, July 29, Ibid. 3

4 Directives on Energy The Department of Defense s (DoD) Energy Posture identified dependence of the US Military on fossil fuel energy as a key issue facing the military Inefficient energy consumption leads to increased costs, effects operational performance and warfighter protection through large and vulnerable logistics support infrastructures DoD has accepted two metrics for initial use The Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF). The fully burdened cost of energy is defined in the NDAA as the commodity price for fuel plus the total cost of all personnel and assets required to move and, when necessary, protect the fuel from the point at which the fuel is received from the commercial supplier to the point of use. 1 The Energy Efficiency Key Performance Parameter (KPP). The KPP, along with the supporting key system attributes (KSAs), requires Program Managers and acquisition decision makers to consider not only the operational requirements of the weapons system design, but also the planned logistical support to sustain it. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum dated Aug 17, 2006 endorsed the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) decision to implement an Energy Efficiency KPP 1 Duncan Hunter, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009/Title III, available at 4

5 Briefing Outline Motivation for Military Energy Accountability Energy metrics for Military Systems Modeling and Analysis capability and Energy example 5

6 Key Performance Parameters KPPs are system attributes considered most critical or essential for an effective military capability The Capability Design Document (CDD) and the Capability Production Document (CPD) must contain sufficient KPPs to capture the minimum operational effectiveness and sustainment attributes needed to achieve the desired capabilities for the system, family of systems (FoS), or system of systems (SoS) Failure to meet a CDD or CPD KPP threshold may result in a reevaluation of the program or a modification of the production increments KPPs force accountability of specific performance metrics Source: Manual for the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS),

7 Traditional KPPs and Metrics Prior to the energy initiatives, KPPs focused primarily on system functionality and reliability E.g., Operational Availability (A o ), Reliability, Survivability, Lethality The current metrics do not account for energy use or other sustainment considerations E.g., KPP definition for Operational Availability (A o ) The system at full combat configuration shall achieve an A o of at least Y% when measured continuously over a mission with only system abort (SA) failures factored into the A o assessment Energy KPP is an attempt at including energy and sustainment constraints as part of the metric calculation 7

8 Availability Metrics The following is a formula for Availability: Mean Time Operating ( hrs ) Mean Time Operating ( hrs ) Mean Time Down ( hrs ) Operational Availability is the resulting metric if only System Abort events are used to determine down time Down Time includes Administrative Logistic Delay Times (ALDT) and Mean Time-to-Repair (MTTR) delays (not including resource contention) Sustainment Availability incorporates additional contributors to the downtime component of the calculation Includes consumables (fuel), maintenance services (resource contention and operational constraints), etc. Sustainment Availability can measure the performance impact of the Energy Efficiency KPP

9 Availability Operational Availability vs. Sustainment Availability Family of Systems (FoS) Availability vs. Time Significant differences between A o and A s models. Incorporating additional constraints and operational information impact the average availability Simulated mission time (days) Operational Availability (Ao) Sustainment Availability (As) 9

10 Briefing Outline Motivation for Military Energy Accountability Energy metrics for Military Systems Modeling and Analysis capability and Energy example 10

11 System-of-Systems Analysis Toolset (SoSAT) Model Capabilities SoSAT is a suite of software tools that provides analysts the capability to: Simulate any or all of a system of systems (SoS) organizational structure Simulate multiple mission segments for a SoS Provide data to assess SoS performance objectives Support business decisions and trade-offs Designed to provide DoD and supporting organizations the capability to analyze a SoS Used to perform assessments of Sustainment/Reliability Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) Supporting modernization planning analyses for US Army Program Executive Office of Ground Combat Systems Formal Verification, Validation & Accreditation effort with Army Organizations (AMSAA and ATEC) Basic Modeling Features System element reliability failures Consumable usage and depletion Detailed maintenance activities Supply reorder for consumables and spare inventories Advanced Modeling Features Combat Damage Modeling Network Modeling Prognostics and Health Management Time-Based changes to model attributes (External Conditions) System Referencing (interdependencies) SoSAT Simulation v2.0 released Jan 2010 and going through formal Army VV&A

12 Example Energy Application SoSAT was used to perform sustainment analysis for current Army ground combat systems Analysis focused on Sustainment related KPPs and KSAs in system CDD Worked with current Army ground systems to validate and measure impact of a fuel range requirement Explored the impact of different values of fuel efficiency combined with variations in tank size and range Assessed the impacts of variations in alternative power unit (APU) usage time on system sustainment availability and total fuel usage 12

13 Sustainment Impacts of Changes in Tank Size and Fuel Efficiency Fuel Efficiency Lowest fuel consumption (0% Tank size increase, 15% Fuel efficiency increase) Baseline Range FoS Total Fuel Consumed (gallons) 15% 10% % Tank Size Increase Lowest fuel consumption with highest operating time (15% Tank size increase, 15% Fuel efficiency increase) 5% 0% 15% 10% 5% 0% % Fuel Efficiency Increase Average Operating Time Per System (Hr) 15% % % % % 10% 5% 0% Tank Size 13

14 Total System 1 systems consume the most fuel during the mission Chart is ordered by total fuel consumed by system type Does not take into account the number of vehicles for each type Impacts of Fuel Usage on FoS Sustainment Total Fuel Consumed By System Type Analysis not only measured availability and fuel usage totals, but also identified the number of times Fuel systems need to be re-fueled based on total fuel consumption providing a more operational perspective on the results. System Type Total Fuel Consumed Total Vehicles System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System System Range System Number 27 of Re-fuels Baseline - Limited 4 Baseline Unlimited fuel 4 Alt 1 Unlimited fuel 6 Alt 2 Unlimited fuel 8 14

15 Availability Average Vehicle Fuel Consumption Impacts of APU on FoS performance Increase in APU time decreases average vehicle fuel consumed System FoS Availability and Fuel Usage vs APU Time Increase in APU time slightly increases sustainment availability due to lower fuel usage during APU segments Baseline 0%APU 13%APUHr 25%APUHr 50%APUHr 100%APUHr Operational Availability (Ao) Sustainment Availability (As) Avg Vehicle Fuel Consumed 15

16 Sustainment Availability (A s ) Impacts of APU Usage on Sustainment Availability Sustainment Availability (A s ) vs APU Usage Increase in APU time increases sustainment availability due to lower fuel usage during APU segments Simulated mission time (days) Baseline (0% APU) 13%APUHr 25%APUHr 50%APUHr 100%APUHr 16

17 Summary Military s use of energy is a critical national security problem DoD s proposed metrics (FBCF and Energy KPP) are a positive step to force energy use accountability onto Military programs The ability to measure impacts of sustainment are required to fully measure Energy KPP Sandia s work with Army demonstrates the capability to measure performance which includes energy constraints Sustainment modeling capabilities can provide analytical support for energy and operational decisions 17