Autonomous VTOL Scalable Logistics e Logistics Scalable Logistics ...

What We’ll Discuss• Background• Phase I Objectives• Phase I Results• Phase II Objectives• Phase II Plan4

Expanding TransportationCapacity is a BIG Problem“Despite significant progress, a transportationsystem that serves a growing America still requiresmore capacity [and] performance. The transportationsolutions of the past – building more roads, bridgesand airports – can no longer be our first choice … It’stoo expensive and too damaging to our communitiesand our environment … A total of $39.8 billion isproposed for transportation mobility programs…”*from the U.S. Dept. of Transportation FY2000 Budget in Brief5

What’s Next?• Background• Phase I Objectives• Phase I Results• Phase II Objectives• Phase II Plan7

The Current TransportationSystem is Expensive• Direct Expenses– Fuel / parts– Labor– Capital– $125.3B per annum on road and bridge construction. Mostpavement costs directly related to damage caused by heavyvehicles.**Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, Final Report, US Department ofTransportation, Federal Highway Administration, 199712

Don’t Forget Indirect Costs• ~6,400 highway deaths (11% of total) attributed tocommercial trucks annually.• Highway vehicles responsible for 62% of COemissions, 32% of NO x , and 26% of VOCs.• $4.2B per annum for tire, oil, and battery disposal.• Traffic congestion estimated to cost $182B per year.• Crash costs estimated to be $840B per year.• Trucks are responsible for ~1/3 of these totals:$340 BSources: EPA and DoT reports.13

AVSLA Savings PotentialAVSLA System Cost SavingsTotal Trucking (Replace 1.76% of * Assumed AVSLACosts trucks in region) Percentage Of System CostsFactor (Millions $) (Millions $) Trucking Costs (Millions $)Direct Infrastructure Costs (const & $ 14,114$ 2480% $ -maintenance)Indirect CostsAir Pollution $ 1,868$ 3350% $ 16.4Greenhouse Gases $ 2,968$ 3625% $ 9.1Water $ 858$ 1525% $ 3.8Noise $ 1,209$ 2150% $ 10.6Waste Disposal $ 92$ 225% $ 0.5Congestion $ 5,594$ 980% $ -Crash Costs $ 16,856$ 2970% $ -Total $ 42,659 $ 751$ 40.4$710 Million Saved in Northeast alone !14

What’s Next?• Background• Phase I Objectives• Phase I Results– Operations Analysis– System Definition– Vehicle Definition– Economic Competitiveness• Phase II Objectives• Phase II Plan15

Delivery Network TopologyDesign Space16

System Scheduling Design Space• Scheduled service– Follow a pre-determined schedule– Analogous to a railroad• Posture-based service– Response based on location of assets– Quarterbacks make these kinds of decisions• Priority-based scheduling– Response based on priority of event triggers– Think of triage in an emergency room• Predictive-Adaptive Scheduling– Prepare for expected demand, but be flexible– Similar to restaurant employee scheduling17

Control Concept Design SpaceDispatch ControlCentralized ControlFully DistributedRegional Control18

What’s Next?• Background• Phase I Objectives• Phase I Results– Operations Analysis– System Definition– Vehicle Definition– Economic Competitiveness• Phase II Objectives• Phase II Plan19

Light Vehicle DesignCurrent Tech: 35 lb. payload, 230 miles, 120 knotsFuture Tech: 100 lb. payload, 500 miles, ~140 knots20

Heavy Lift Vehicle Design• Will be studied in Phase II• Two options for approaching heavy lift:– Automate an existing manned helicopter» Economies of scale» Limited development costs – onlydeveloping flight control.» Reduced risk– Clean sheet design» Better performance» Tailor fit for customerrequirements» Expensive21

What’s Next?• Background• Phase I Objectives• Phase I Results– Operations Analysis– System Definition– Vehicle Definition– Economic Competitiveness• Phase II Objectives• Phase II Plan22

Economic ComparisonCapital CostsBasic Comparison of Vehicle Cost (Excluding Financing Costs)1-Package VTOL Current TrucksPackages per Day 1,500,000 1,500,000Packages per Hour 187,500 187,500Vehicle Cost (each) $4,000.00 $50,000.00# of Vehicles Needed 187,500 8,600Total Cost of All Vehicles $750,000,000.00 $430,000,000.00Vehicle Life (years) 8 12Vehicle Cost per Year $93,750,000.00 $35,833,333.33Vehicle Cost per Day $360,576.92 $137,820.51Vehicle Cost per Package $0.24 $0.09Cost vs. Weight (100 miles)Operational CostsDelivery Van Light AVSLA UnitsFuel 0.12 0.12 $/pkg-hrMisc. FinanceCost 1.02 1.08 $/pkg-hrMaintenance 0.19 0.25 $/pkg-hrPersonnel 1.40 0.43 $/pkg-hrTotal OperationsCost 2.73 1.88 $/pkg-hrSpeed 15 90 mph200-mile deliverytime 13.33 2.22 hrOperational costfor 200-miledelivery 36.40 4.18 $/pkgOperational savings outweigh capital costs.Cost vs. Weight (200 miles)$160.00VT OL$160.00VT OLCost ($)$120.00$80.00$40.00FedExFirstFedExPriorityCost ($)$120.00$80.00$40.00FedExFirstFedExPriority$0.000 20 40 60 80 100$0.000 20 40 60 80 100Weight (lb)Weight (lb)23

Phase I Identified TechnologyRoadmap Issues• Advanced system will rely on improved informationgathering and sharing.• Communication link integrity and security is a basicrequirement.• Integration with the National Airspace will be a keyissue.• Free flight initiatives will benefit this system.• It is necessary to both improve the vehicletechnologies and reduce life-cycle costs.24

What’s Next?• Background• Phase I Objectives• Phase I Results• Phase II Objectives• Phase II Plan25

AVSLA Team- Phase II GoalAutonomous VTOL Scalable Logistics Architecture (AVSLA)“AVSLA is envisioned to be a future cargo delivery “system-of-systems”that provides cheaper, more efficient, and more effective service to thenation’s consumers. Related VTOL vehicles for military heavy-liftpurposes are also likely to benefit from AVSLA technology. The statedgoal of the NIAC Phase II program is to provide a sound basis forNASA to use in considering advanced concepts for future missions.Thus, this Phase II proposal focuses on specific, critical research areasidentified for AVSLA.”“The overall technical goal is to develop a system-of-systemsmodel of the AVSLA design space, complete with supportinganalyses in key areas, that, when combined with advancedprobabilistic design methods, can establish a solid basis forestablishing a full-scale research program at NASA.”26

Phase II Partnerships“Need UPS for realism of cost. It will take UPS involvement tobe sure that the numbers are realistic”• Collaboration established with UPS e-ventures in Atlanta• First meeting June 18; attendees include logistics experts as wellas business planners“Working with the FAA at this point is critical; Without buy in by the FAA,any concept of this type is dead on arrival”• Collaboration with GTRI in Atlanta and FAA in Washington• Objectives: understand regulatory issues & emerging technologies(ADSB, etc), to leverage planning for next-generation NASUS Army• Contact made with AMCOM (AMRDEC)• Emerging Army center of excellence for UAVs• Interest in autonomous resupply of Future Combat System27

AVSLA Knowledge-Centric Design SpaceFully Distributed(Point-to-Point)•Dynamic Dispatch/Delivery•Autonomous Flight•Point-to-Point NetworkDelivery Network Topology•DynamicDispatch/Delivery•Slave RoutingTodayFuture ?SchedulingCentralizedControl DistributionWhere is the Knowledge and Control ?• AutonomousFlight• Slave Routing28

Key Technical Objectives• Develop a AVSLA system-of-systems methodology, that creates aninfrastructure for continued study:• Expand the system dynamics model to explore National (NE + SE) & Urban settings• Create ability to trade-off different network topologies, control technologies, etc.• Create ability to account for “dynamic markets”, i.e. answer the question“Is the given AVSLA concept robust to market changes” (Business Plan)• Understand technology co-evolution!• Any future delivery architecture will have to co-evolve withlegacy delivery systems and transportation infrastructure• AVSLA will not magically appear all at once• Understand and model capital cost and ATC constraints related to transition• Consider the creation of new markets to speed transition (business innovation!)FAA/GTRIPartnership• Understand fundamental issues in package delivery• Cost Drivers!- Number of touches, direct operating costs• Hub/Spoke Operation; Sorting functions, technologies, bottlenecks• “Transition time” costs/implicationsUPSPartnership29

Key Sub-Areas of Research• Onboard vehicle computing (Comm/Nav/FCS)- How much?– Finding in Phase I- For the small VTOL, it is critical to determine whichcapabilities are feasible “on-board” in point-to-point architecture• Reliability of Autonomous Service/Control– Dr. G. Vachtsevanos (GT-EE), Vehicle Autonomy/QoS Expert• NAS/ATM System Integration– Number 1 Issue for AVSLA, from a safety and public acceptance point ofview– C. Stancil (GTRI) and FAA expertise• Transportation Architecture Scalability (up and down)– NE Region modeled in Phase I– Do the dynamics change in national-scale model (NE+SE) ??– Do the dynamics change in urban setting ??30

Exploring The Economy Of TheSoutheast• The South Atlantic division of the South region– (Delaware, DC, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, N&S Carolina, Virginia,W. Virginia 9 states)• Which commodities offer the best combination ofvalue density, market size, and market growth ?North East Region• How are these commodities delivered?• How far are these items shipped?• How large are the shipments?South AtlanticDivisionSouth Region31

Determining The IdealICommodities For Delivery...• Value density, growth, total value combined into a single“goodness” indicatorValueA• Each metric is normalizedValueA( Normalized )=Value2A+ ...+ Value2Z1 - nominal1.1 - 10% more important1.2 - 20% more importantEvaluation CriteriaTotal ValueValue DensityMarket GrowthWeight 1 1.2 1.1CommodityScoreTobacco 0.15 0.26 -0.21 0.228Pharmaceuticals 0.24 0.32 0.39 1.044Textiles 0.70 0.13 -0.03 0.826Electronics & Office Eq. 0.57 0.44 0.35 1.480Transportation Equipment 0.08 0.38 0.01 0.543Precision Equipment 0.11 0.64 0.48 1.406Industrial Machinery 0.29 0.24 0.63 1.268Furniture 0.10 0.11 -0.22 -0.01432

Determining The IdealCommodities For Delivery...• Target Commodities:– Pharmaceuticals– Industrial Machinery– Precision Equipment– Electronics & Office Equipment* Applicability of North East reqm’tsin the South Atlantic DivisionGoodness Vs. Weight & Distance3.000For The NE, you may recall:• Heavy vehicle– 10K lb. payload– 250 statute mile range• Light vehicle– 100 lb. payload– 500 statute mile range0 to 49 miles50 to 99100 to 249250 to 499500 to 749750 to 99910000 to 4999950 to 99100 to 499500 to 749750 to 9991000 to 99992.5002.0001.500 "goodness" score1.0000.5000.000Less than 49 lbs* Primary Data Source: 1997 Commodity Flow Survey, South Atlantic Division,U.S. Dept. of Transportation April 200033

Structured Design MethodologyProvides Critical Functions• Ability to explore, compute, and visualize sensitivities ofkey AVSLA objectives to:– Economic and Regulatory requirements– Vehicle and Information technologies– System architecture variables• It is critical to quantify and track RISK from the beginningin order to realize the advanced AVSLA concept– A credible technology roadmap, including risk, is essential forNASA to consider funding in base R&T• Design Decision Documentation34

Methodology for ContinuousDesign/DevelopmentProblem Definition2Determine System Feasibility1Functions (CDFs)NP(feas) YP< εε smallAVSLAx1FPI(AMV) SystemsC 15PDecision Makingorx2MonteDynamicsCarlo• MADM TechniquesC• Robust Design SimulationModel2P• Incorporate Uncertainty ModelsConstraint Fault TreeIdentify objectives, constraints,x 1P(feas)design variables (and associatedside constraints), analyses,FPI(AIS) Physics-Based or Monte M&S+FPI Carlox uncertainty models, and metrics2ANDx3C 1 C 2 C 3 C 43 Examine Feasible SpaceConstraintCumulative DistributionX i = Design VariableC i = Constraintx 3Design Space ModelDesign Space ModelRelaxConstraints?YC 3The “UTE”It is at this criticaldecision-box that weneed to examinerequirements, potentialtechnologies, andconcepts• Technology Selection• Resource Allocation• Robust Design Solution4Technology Identification/Evaluation/Selection (TIES)• Identify Technology Alternatives• Collect Technology Attributes• Form Metamodels for Attribute Metricsthrough Modeling & Simulation• Employ Tech. Confidence Shape Fcns.• Probabilistic Analysis to obtain CDFsfor the AlternativesPObtain New CDFsC iOld Tech.New Tech.Relax ActiveConstraints?NY35

Concept Alternative GenerationExample:•Point-to-Point Topology•Single Vehicle System•Docs+Small Parcel•Express Service•Auton. VTOL•50-500 miles•Real-time pkg track•……..Horizontal DeliverySystem TopologyVertical DeliverySystem TopologyHub & Spoke Point to Point Hybrid DistributedSingle, All-PurposeVehicleSeparate Delivery Vehicle andTransfer VehiclePackage Type Document Standard MailShipment TimeVehicle TypeSame-day(SuperExpress)Fixed Wing A/C (widebodyJet or regionalturboprop)Small Parcel (< 50lbs, 500 miles) InternationalSo manypossibilities!THOROUGHOps/Econ Analysisand technologyevaluation can reducethe “option space” tosome extentAir Traffic Control Current ATC ADS-B ADS-B (TIS-B, FIS-B) VTOL Corridors Free-FlightOperation Control Autonomous Semi-Autonomous Non-Autonomous (Slave)Strategic Control(Dispatch)Centralized Distributed to Hubs Distributed to VehiclePackage Sorting Current System Sort at each stop/hubPackage Tracking No tracking Update Tracking at each stopNumber of HandoffsPick-Up/DeliveryApproachGPS Tracking / pervehicle (real time)GPS Tracking / perpackage (real time)Hand taggingTwo (Pickup,Delivery) Three (pickup, transfer, delivery) Four Five SixFixed number ofstandard "smart"containersCustomer packaging, restrictedin size & volume36

Many Trades to Be Made-e.g. Modular “Smart” Container?Each Row in the Morphological Matrix represents a set oftrade-offs that must be made, including interaction with otherrows (systems)Example:Pick-up/Drop-off interface Option 1 (Right): Modular “smart”containers, accommodating a fixednumber of discrete package volumesV E H I C L E Option 2: Customer chooses packaging,places it in “smart box” similar to today’sFedEx boxes, transfer en-masse to vehicle(sorting on-board?)Modular “smart” containers37

Dynamic Visualization of Analyses-A Notional “Look Ahead” at AVSLA CandidatesAVSLA Figureof Meritcontours sethereHoriz VertFactorDelivery RangeVTOL Comm TechPayloadTrans Delay TimeVTOL AutonomyTopology Distrib.ResponseTotal CostTotal TimeVTOL ReliabilityDelivery ReliabilityMarket ShareCurrent X-0.888800-1-0.8888-0.857Current Y Lo Limit Hi Limit37137.19? 400004.812? 150.87635 0.8?152.42 0.7?700.21 695?INTERACTIVE Slidebars control designvariable valuesConstraints are set here1Del. ReliabilityLevel of VTOLAutonomyVTOL ReliabilityNOT FEASIBLEMarket ShareTotal TimeFEASIBLESPACE00Level of Distribution of Delivery TopologyTotal $$138

Requirements Ambiguity + Tech. Uncertainty:Assessing RISK in AVSLA DevelopmentAchievedRequirement(What Delivery Costcan AVSLA achieve inlight of technologyuncertainty?)One Requirement (1-D) ExampleAnticipatedRequirement(What DeliveryCost will themarket demand?)Probability DensityProbability Density Function (PDF) for RDProbability ofSatisfyingDelivery CostRD = Req Achieved -Req Anticipated0Cumulative Probability Function (CDF) for RDProbabilityDensityProbabilityRange of Satisfied Requirement(Achieved > Anticipated)Delivery CostProbability ofSatisfyingDelivery Cost0RD39

What’s Next?• Background• Phase I Objectives• Phase I Results• Phase II Objectives• Phase II Plan40

The Road AheadATCComplianceCustomerRealism(UPS,US Army)AutonomousControlIssuesSystemDynamicsSikorskySystem IntegrationExpertiseGeorgia TechDesignMethodologyProbabilisticApproachPhase II Outputs1. AVSLA Conceptswith highestProbabilityof Success2. TechnologyRoadmap3. ResearchRequirementsGoing Forward41

AVSLA is a Transportation System SolutionThe Solution42