MORS Power and Energy Workshop Working Group 4 Modeling and Simulation for Systems Engineering

1. MORS Power and Energy WorkshopWorking Group 4Modeling and Simulation for Systems Engineering Chair – Lynda Liptak Co-Chairs – Mike Pozolo, John Gillis Nov 30 – 3 Dec 2009

2. WG4 Purpose/Focus Purpose: Understand system performance with regard to energy usage at the systems engineering level Obj 1: Explore the benefits of System Engineering (SE) Modeling Simulation and Analysis (MS&A) regarding energy performance and efficiencies Obj 2: ID common tools available for trade space analysis in support of energy demand Obj 3: ID MS&A gaps in the application of tools in support of energy issues Obj 4: ID general standards needed for analysis

4. WG4 Approach Working Group 4 focused on Systems Engineering MS&A regarding P&E, while being cognizant of influence on Campaign Level Simulations Well attended by Army organizations conducting systems engineering level analysis Presentations made to set the stage for discussion: DoD and Army M&S: Mr. John Gillis, ASA(ALT) Integration of Science and Technology in M&S: Mr. Tom Hurt, RDECOM Army, Tank-Automotive RD&E Center, System Level Fuel Economy Analysis: Mr. Mike Pozolo, TARDEC AMSAA Fuel Consumption Prediction Model (FCPM): Mr. Mark Hanna, AMSAA Performing Energy System/subsystem Trade Studies Through Optimization: Mr. Bruce Thompson, Sandia National Lab Modeling, Simulation and Validation of Powertrain Model for Fuel Consumption Analysis: Mr. Peilin Song, AMSAA

5. WG4 Findings/Outcomes Obj1: Explore the benefits of SE MS&A regarding energy performance and efficiencies? Benefits Recognized : Capture accurate system-level performance data which then rolls up to higher level analysis tools Show trades between energy source alternatives and system performance factors to support business case analyses Show the system level performance impact on the logistics tail Explore capabilities at the system level to support Energy Efficiency KPP(s) definition as well as energy efficiency metrics (KSAs)

6. WG4 Findings/Outcomes Obj 2: ID common tools for energy demand trade-space analysis There is no one-stop-shop for engineering models regarding P&E Tools exist for multi-level analysis i.e. Subsystem, System, Engagement and Mission, but not well integrated for the P&E emphasis Opportunity Exists to Incorporate Enterprise-Scale M&S Federations Ex: Modeling Architecture for Technology Research and Experimentation (MATREX), Air Force Integrated Collaborative Environment (AF ICE) What are Navy and other equivalents? Many SE M&S tools and methodologies GOTS/COTS available (e.g EASY5, GT-SUITE, AVL, MATLAB/Simulink, PSAT, Autonomie, Fuel Consumption Prediction Model, optimization etc.) – Emphasis should be on integration of output from these tools to higher level analyses Trade-space tools include System of Systems Analysis Toolset (SoSAT), Technology Management Optimization (TMO), Dynamic Sustainment Model

7. WG4 Findings/Outcomes Obj 3: ID energy use MS&A gaps Regarding SE impacts, logistics and sustainment are not typically considered Standardized scenarios and data do not exist that include the logistics tail and sustainment for various systems Access to detailed System Data is Difficult Engine Fuel Maps, Component Efficiency Maps, Transmission Shift Logic, Heat rejection, etc. – Required for accurate system P&E Analyses, but often considered proprietary by OEMs Technical Data needs to be requested throughout the Acquisition Phase Well defined, sufficiently detailed, and community accepted, mission profiles for comparison purposes is rare No feedback loop from higher level MS&A to lower levels

8. WG4 Findings/Outcomes Obj 3: ID energy use MS&A gaps Lack of adequately documented analysis framework and methodology Given this is a new emphasis of analysis, P&E questions are not well defined for system engineering analysis High level questions require decomposition and framing to some detail Scenario specific Inconsistent interface/fidelity between system level and campaign level analyses Human behavior (driver/operator) can have a large impact on P&E estimates. Not consistently represented in current methodologies

9. WG4 Findings/Outcomes Obj 4: ID gaps in P&E MS&A Standards No standard outputs to describe systems and platforms What do higher –level M&S tools need to know about system? SE MS&A tools can be structured to accommodate No standard duty cycles for classes of energy consumers and producers Duty cycles in current use may be too simplistic No common P&E nomenclature across DoD

10. General Observations A single P&E metric may not fully characterize P&E performance for FBCF and Energy KPP Example: Ton-mpg metric may be misleading and not capture intent of reducing fuel consumption. A fuel efficient, lighter vehicle can have a lower ton-mpg rating than a heavier, less fuel efficient vehicle in the same class In defining the Energy Efficiency KPP, one operating point (e.g. fuel economy at 30 mph) is insufficient – need to reflect how vehicle will be used in operation to truly capture expected fuel usage Fuel consumption prediction complex with many variables (on-board power demands, cooling requirements, terrain, driveline efficiencies, etc.) How much detail can operational planners and modelers use?

11. General Observations • DoD and Army M&S Repository Search for Power, Energy, and Fuel did not find many relevant instances • To allow system trades, cost elements must be consistent with the systems modeled • Capital, Sustainment, and Logistics Cost Elements • Several data sources available; all with advantages / limitations within and outside of DoD • Key Fuel Demand Driver: Operational Mission/Scenario power demand (moving and non-moving systems) • Army has greater variety of platforms and systems to consider for P&E than other services • From Soldier as a System to … Brigade Combat Teams • AF and Navy use the largest quantity fuel. Their input is needed in shaping the discussion of FBCF and Energy Efficiency KPP

12. WG4 Recommendations • Given this is a new area of analysis, need to define and decompose FBCF and Energy Efficiency KPP to the SE M&S level • Documented analysis framework and methodology • Logistics and sustainment should be considered at SE level MS&A • Standardized scenarios and data should include the logistics tail and sustainment for various systems • Standardized mission profiles for comparison purposes should be defined and accessible. • Standard outputs needed to describe systems and platforms • Need feedback loop from higher level MS&A to lower levels • Need consistent interface/fidelity between system level and campaign level analyses • Human behavior that impacts P&E at the system level should be considered

13. Recommendations • Need standard duty cycles for classes of energy consumers and producers • Common P&E nomenclature across DoD needed • A national database of energy usage by system type should be initiated and maintained • DoD needs to fund common repository of environmental data sources used in energy analysis • M&S community should attend MSFD and scenario development conferences to add P&E and sustainment phases to include logistics • DAU unit on P&E requirements, policy, MS&A, and methodology • Engage DoD M&S communities • Engage DoD SE forum • Create energy-use system engineering data tables by mission profile for higher level modeling • Multiple metrics should be used to examine system performance

14. Immediate Opportunities/Actions Immediate: 6 months to a year, or less Focused P&E effort with current conflicts as a framework Initiate dialogue with Rapid Acquisition Initiatives (e.g. REF Army example) for P&E trade space analysis to achieve immediate impact on the battlefield Joint Staff J8 request System Level MS&A Community representation from services at MSFD and scenario development conferences to add P&E and sustainment phases to include logistics Engage DoD M&S Communities, SE Forum and others to support Power and Energy initiatives Initiate DAU Curriculum to include P&E requirements, policy, MS&A, and methodology

15. Longer-term Opportunities/Actions Longer term—beyond a year Standardized scenarios and data should include the logistics tail and sustainment for various systems Standardized mission profiles for comparison purposes should be defined and accessible. Standard duty cycles for classes of energy consumers and producers M&S tools need to be updated to keep pace with developing technology

16. WG4 Summary MORS P&E Special Meeting was a valuable opportunity WG 4 focused on the objectives as well as the recommendations we wanted to make to decision makers Great participation and discussion from participants Collaboration and discussion should continue including integration with other WG topics Follow-on meetings with EE KPP focus recommended

17. WG 4 Participants Thank You!