Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
4 Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering The task statement for this study asks the committee to âevaluate the current state of science and technology [S&T]âspeciï¬cally, basic and early applied researchâactivities in naval engineering and closely related disciplines in the United States in the context of research, edu- cation (the âpipelineâ of future naval researchers, graduate and post doctoral), and the associated infrastructure. . . . [and to] report on the health of the basic and early applied research, graduate and postgraduate research âpipelineâ and the associated infrastructure necessary for a long- term, sustainable portfolio that will provide technology options for future Navy advanced technology development programs.â In response to this charge, the ï¬rst section below assesses the health of basic and early applied research, graduate and postdoctoral education, and the research infrastructure. The task statement also asks the committee to assess the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineeringâs (NNR-NEâs) âprogress in the ability to: (l) provide and sustain robust research expertise in the United States working on long-term problems of importance to the Department of the Navy; (2) ensure that an adequate pipeline of new researchers, engineers, and faculty continues; and (3) ensure that ONR [the Ofï¬ce of Naval Research] can continue to provide superior S&T in naval architecture and marine engineering.â In response, the second section of this chapter compares ONR activities and accomplishments with the original NNR-NE goals and assesses ONRâs ability to fulï¬ll the NNR-NE. 113
114 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century HEALTH OF THE S&T ENTERPRISE SUPPORTING NAVAL ENGINEERING This section presents the committeeâs assessment of the state of health of the scientiï¬c and technical disciplines on which naval engineering depends most directly. The assessment examines the state of research in each ï¬eld and the contributions of government laboratories, universities, and indus- try to the naval engineering S&T enterprise. The section also proposes how ONR could measure the health of these disciplines in a systematic way in the future to fulï¬ll the NNR-NE mission. The committee defined the health of research in a field in terms of the three kinds of research outputs intended from ONRâs S&T invest- ments (ONR 2009, 4): knowledge (evidence that the activity is a source of new understanding of physical phenomena and technologies rele- vant to naval engineering), transitions (evidence that research output leads to applications that strengthen naval capabilities), and people (evidence that the activity contributes to the pool of research talent and expertise devoted to naval engineering problems). A healthy research field was defined as one that is productive in advancing fundamental knowledge, has strong linkages to engineering practice as evidenced by the transition of discoveries to applications and by the existence of effective channels of communication between researchers and practi- tioners, and has positive future prospects as evidenced by the develop- ment and retention of talented researchers and by the attraction of new researchers and resources into the field. Typically, in a healthy research field, diverse topics are under investigation, a balance of research methods is being used, and resources are sufï¬cient to allow ample oppor- tunity for creative research and for pursuing transition opportunities. The ultimate success of research depends on the availability of practi- tioners who are aware of the latest scientific developments, are profi- cient in the latest techniques, and maintain close communication with the research community. The state of the institutions conducting research in support of naval engineering is described in the ï¬rst subsection below, and the state of research in the naval engineeringârelated S&T ï¬elds is described in the sec- ond subsection. The present study is not the ï¬rst to consider the health of
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 115 the naval engineering S&T enterprise; earlier assessments are summarized and commented on in Annex 4-2. Research Institutions The major participants in research supporting naval engineering are gov- ernment laboratories (especially the Navy laboratories), universities, and the shipbuilding industry. Navy Laboratories and Related Government Research and Development Facilities The ability of the naval laboratories and other government research and development facilities to support the naval ship systems engineering S&T infrastructure was explored at the committeeâs January 2010 workshop (see Appendix A) and through analysis of the ONR portfolio of sponsored basic and applied research projects in the NNR-NE ï¬elds. At the workshop, rep- resentatives of the principal Department of Defense (DOD) and other gov- ernment entities supporting naval ship systems engineering1 were asked to discuss the following questions: ⢠What research is your institution supporting, or has it supported, that directly relates to the areas of interest of the Ship Systems and Engi- neering Research Division of ONR (hydromechanics and hull design; ship design tools; propulsors; ship structures; and automation, control, and system integration)? ⢠How did the research topics in these areas originate in your institution? ⢠Who has performed the research (e.g., internal laboratory personnel, external contractors, recipients of university grants, or multiple insti- tutions in collaboration)? ⢠Has your institution cooperated with ONR for these research projects? ⢠Do you foresee research topics that would beneï¬t from ONR coordina- tion and support? 1 The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division; the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division; the Naval Research Laboratory; the CREATE Ship High Performance Com- puting Modernization Program; and the National Science Foundation.
116 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century The ability of the naval laboratories and government research and development facilities to support the naval ship systems engineering S&T infrastructure is varied. The results of the committeeâs assessment indi- cate the following: ⢠The Naval Sea System Commandâs (NAVSEAâs) Naval Surface War- fare Center, Carderock (NSWC-CD), is the primary facility conduct- ing research and development for transitioning NNR-NE research results to naval applications. ⢠NSWC-CD has been effective in supporting advanced degrees in naval engineering; in recruiting naval engineers; and in promot- ing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. ⢠NAVSEAâs Naval Undersea Weapons Center has relevant but limited activity in the NNR-NE areas, in particular, in unmanned vehicles and in system integration (focused on energy sources). ⢠The Naval Research Laboratoryâs diverse mission does not emphasize investments in the NNR-NE areas. ⢠Although the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsors basic re- search in related areas (including ï¬uid dynamics, structural materials, energy and power, and systems engineering), NSF-sponsored projects in these areas are heterogeneous and rarely address the problems crit- ical to naval engineering progress. Similarly, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and other DOD agencies support relevant research, but rarely with potential naval applications or spe- ciï¬c Navy needs in mind. University Research Centers and Private-Sector Research Institutions The January 2010 workshop also explored the ability of university and private-sector research institutions to support naval ship systems engi- neering S&T. Representatives of university research centers, large and small private-sector research institutions, and naval shipbuilder research centers closely aligned with naval ship systems engineering were asked to do the following: ⢠Briefly outline the institutionâs involvement in basic and applied research and advanced technology development related to the areas
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 117 of interest to the Ship Systems and Engineering Research Division of ONR (hydromechanics and hull design; ship design tools; propul- sors; ship structures; and automation, control, and system integration). Features to describe include major interest areas and projects, depart- ments involved, major sponsors and annual support (in round num- bers), and numbers of faculty and graduate students. ⢠Characterize the overall health of the ï¬eld in the institutionâs most active areas, for example, trends in funding, faculty, students, and sig- niï¬cant recent research and development accomplishments. ⢠Identify opportunities for ONR to sustain research and education in these research areas. ⢠For the institutionâs most active areas, identify the factors that drive the research and development agenda. How does the institution plan for future growth or contraction in these areas? How do the institutionâs researchers interact with users of research (beyond the funding source)? What role does ONR have in setting the agenda in this field? The results of the committeeâs assessment indicate the following: ⢠Considerable university research is funded by the Navy in hydro- dynamics, hydromechanics, and advanced hull design areas. Several universities have towing tanks to conduct experimental research. ⢠Research in the naval engineering S&T areas conducted by private research institutions and shipbuilders is funded by the Navy. There is little or no commercial funding of naval engineering research at universities and private research institutions. ⢠Design agents support shipbuilders or the Navy in design-related activities. Some design agents develop ship design tools to assist their design-related activities. ⢠Providing scholarships to junior- or senior-year undergraduate engi- neering students to encourage them to pursue a naval engineering focus probably would be effective in increasing the engineering workforce supply. ⢠The Navy is essentially the sole source of academic research funding in the areas of naval hydrodynamics and naval ship design, and university research in these areas would cease without this support.
118 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Commercial Shipbuilding, Offshore Petroleum Industry, and Professional Societies The ability of the commercial shipbuilding industry, the offshore indus- try, and classiï¬cation and professional societies to support the naval ship systems engineering S&T infrastructure was explored at the January 2010 workshop and through analysis of case studies (Hackett 2010; Hagan 2010; B. J. Carter, presentation to the committee, Jan. 13, 2010). Repre- sentatives of commercial shipbuilders, the offshore industry, and classiï¬- cation and professional societies2 were asked to give information similar to that asked of the university and private research institutions. The information received from these sources indicates the following: ⢠Investment in commercial ship systems engineering technology within the United States is limited. Therefore, the Navy cannot rely on the commercial industry to sustain the naval ship system engineering S&T infrastructure and technology base. However, some U.S. ship- yards have developed relationships with foreign shipyards, which have resulted in application of commercial ship construction concepts devel- oped abroad to Navy shipbuilding programs (B. J. Carter, presentation to the committee, Jan. 13, 2010). ⢠Commercial shipbuilding is focused on efï¬ciency and cost, which are of interest to the Navy. ⢠There is a healthy investment in offshore technology that is vital in supporting and sustaining the maritime-related university infrastruc- ture and the naval engineering human capital pipeline for this seg- ment of the industry. ⢠Classiï¬cation societiesâ research is primarily focused on supporting classiï¬cation rules or standards development for commercial ships and other marine structures. ⢠Professional societies such as the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers support educational programs and have technical and research committees that address some of the S&T activities. 2 General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO); Herbert Engineering Corp. Group; ConocoPhillips; Chevron; American Bureau of Shipping; and Maersk Maritime Technology, AP Moller-Maersk.
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 119 ⢠The activity of the international research community in shipbuilding countries such as Japan, Korea, China, and Norway (a center of the offshore industry) is isolated from U.S. interests and efforts. ⢠Alternative approaches to improving the efï¬cacy of these activities would include increasing government investment in the U.S. com- mercial S&T infrastructure and promoting governmentâindustry cooperative research and development of dual-use (commercial and naval) technology. State of Naval Engineering Research Institutions: Summary Observations The naval engineering S&T enterprise relies on government support. Therefore, the national laboratories, university research centers, and private-sector research centers tend to conduct project-based research in highly speciï¬c areas. The unique attributes of naval ship design limit the ability to make wide use of technology imported from other disciplines; therefore, the responsibility for S&T advances in this industry rests on the industry customer. Thus, government has no option other than to invest directly in the S&T enterprise to advance the naval engineering industry and to keep national efforts current with world developments. In the United States, there is little transfer of technology from the com- mercial shipping industry to the naval engineering industry, in part because of the differing forces that drive the two industries. While each industry is concerned with the design, production, maintenance, and operation of ships, the driving force in commercial shipping is one of minimizing cost. Minimizing total ownership cost is growing in impor- tance for the Navy, but this focus is tempered in naval engineering because of the many constraints and requirements that determine naval ship design. Therefore, the commercial ship design industry is not a major contributor to efforts to advance naval ship design S&T. Clear exceptions are in the areas of ship design for producibility and ship production meth- ods, where commercial technology and practices are important contrib- utors to improvements in naval ship manufacturing and reductions in ship acquisition cost. There has also been appreciable commercial tech- nology transition in maintenance and in crew size issues associated with automation and control.
120 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Research in the S&T Areas Supporting Naval Engineering The committeeâs sources of information on the current state of research in the S&T areas supporting naval engineering (hydromechanics and hull design; propulsors; structural systems; ship design tools; automation, control, and system integration; and platform power and energy) included the January 2010 workshop described in the preceding section, certain of the papers commissioned by the committee (Triantafyllou 2010; Kiss 2010), and the June 2010 workshop at which researchers supported by ONR discussed the prospects for contributions to naval engineering from research in their ï¬elds (see Appendix A). Each of the June workshop researcher panelists, as well as other researchers who did not attend, responded to the following questions relating to the state of health of the panelistâs ï¬eld: ⢠How would you characterize the overall health of your ï¬eld? Have there been recent breakthrough accomplishments in the ï¬eld? Are the trends positive in your ï¬eld for attracting researchers and funding? ⢠Are advances in your ï¬eld tied to other ï¬elds of research? What are the links, and how do the dependencies among the ï¬elds affect research in your ï¬eld? ⢠Where does ï¬nancial support for research in your ï¬eld come from, in the United States and internationally? ⢠What are the most signiï¬cant areas of challenge in your ï¬eld of research in the next 20 years? What are the hard problems in your ï¬eld? What are the obstacles to progress in your ï¬eld? Hydrodynamics and Hull Design; Propulsors The major supporters of hydrodynamics basic research in the United States historically have been the Navy, NSF, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NSF supports a diverse and substan- tial program of basic and applied research in ï¬uid mechanics, including projects that have potential applications ranging from chemical engineer- ing to robotics and medicine, but few address hydrodynamics problems of likely relevance to naval engineering. The ï¬eld of naval hydromechanics, that is, research aimed at under- standing the physical phenomena that determine the hydrodynamic and
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 121 hydroacoustic performance of naval ships, arguably would not survive without Navy support. The move in recent years to replace experimen- tal work with computationâin part to save costs (and time)âhas not yet achieved the ultimate potential savings and has in fact created new demands for experimentation and measurements to provide the necessary validation and calibration of codes and models. Given current resources and objectives, the current mix and balance of U.S. naval hydrodynamics basic research (primarily, the ONR program) may be the best that can be achieved to meet narrowly focused needs. However, the overall program is stretched thin and is not robust enough to meet unanticipated critical Navy needs. More important, it does not have sufï¬cient depth in more basic investigations to generate the breakthrough and disruptive tech- nologies that could redeï¬ne naval engineering in the future. The balance between computational and experimental work in hydro- dynamics must be carefully monitored. Experimental validation remains an essential step in the development of hydrodynamic models. How- ever, experiments are costly and therefore more vulnerable during peri- ods of budget pressure. Experimental facilities depend on funded research for their support and will deteriorate without use. Major research facili- ties are maintained and used at NSWC-CD and elsewhere, primarily at universities. Structural Systems U.S. industry supports little naval structures research because few large commercial ships are built in the United States. Naval structures research is performed and funded in the commercial sector in such countries as Japan and Korea, where commercial shipbuilding is a major industry. Basic research in structures and structural materials (that is, research not focused on naval applications) has a broad range of potential applica- tions and receives support from multiple public sources (including NSF and NASA) as well as private-sector sources; therefore, many structures researchers are working in the United States who could perform naval structures research if they received funding from ONR. However, the health of the ï¬eld of structures research directly related to naval engi- neering, exclusive of ONR activities, can only be considered as poor to fair in the United States.
122 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Ship Design Tools There is little research in the United States aimed at developing improved tools and methods for use in the early stages of the design of new naval ships. In the early design stages (e.g., feasibility studies, preliminary design, contract design), the performance requirements for the new ship must be translated into a viable design concept (or alternative concepts), and the design is deï¬ned up to the level of detail required for making cost and con- struction schedule estimates (contract design). These early design phases use specialized methods and models such as ship synthesis tools, set-based design methods, physics-based performance prediction models, and cost- estimating tools. Decisions made at the early design stages determine the basic architecture of the ship and ship systems and costs of construction and ownership (Keane 2011, 13). A recent analysis of Navy ship design capability concluded that âover- all, the availability and quality of analysis software has eroded with the passage of time. There has been inadequate investment to keep pace with changes in computer technology, weapon systems technology and ship technology (materials, hull configurations, power density, etc.)â (Billingsley 2010, 6). It has been estimated that the lack of robust physics- based tools for use in early design in recent Navy surface combat ship programs has resulted in added costs on the order of hundreds of mil- lions of dollars to the Navy for repair of material deï¬ciencies that have arisen in service and has placed operational restrictions on the shipsâ deployment (Keane 2011, 10â12). At the same time, the shipbuilding industry, with Navy support, has invested signiï¬cantly in development of tools for detail design, the stage of design that produces the plans and procedures that guide the shipyard construction workers and provides control over construction cost and schedule. These shipyard design tools are more advanced than those in use for commercial ship design and construction, because the technical complexity of modern naval ships demands more sophisticated methods. The advanced shipyard design tools have potential uses throughout all stages of design. Some recent acquisition programs, notably the Virginia Class submarine program, have applied integrated product and process development (Figure 4-1), an approach to ship design and construction in which the early design stages are integrated with construction planning
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 123 YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR 6 YR 7 YR 8 YR 9 YR 10 YR 11 YR 12 YR 13 âTRADITIONALâ CONCEPT DESIGN DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION PRELIM DESIGN OVERLAP LIMITS EFFICIENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DESIGN DETAIL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION PLANNING CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL SOURCING âIPPD - SEAMLESSâ INTEGRATED SCHEDULE SYSTEM DEFINITION INTEGRATED DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION SHIP 1 MATERIAL SOURCING SHIP 1 CONSTRUCTION SHIP 2 MATERIAL SOURCING SHIP 2 FIGURE 4-1 Traditional versus integrated product and process development ship design and construction processes. (IPPD = integrated product and process development. SOURCE: General Dynamics Electric Boat 2002, 28.) to improve the efï¬ciency with which performance and cost objectives are met (General Dynamics Electric Boat 2002; Keane et al. 2005, 4, 9). In the Virginia Class program, product and process designs were integrated through a central model and a database provided by the shipyard. How- ever, broader use of shipyard design tools and databases in this manner may be hindered because there has been little transition of the technology developed by the private-sector shipyards to Navy ship designers, many advances are regarded as proprietary, and the level of detail in associated databases is often not compatible with the early-stage analysis of alterna- tives and set-based design for new concepts. The NNR-NE portfolio does not include investments in detail design tools because development of these tools is not considered to be basic research. In general, research in ship design tools tends to be focused on the transition of basic research knowledge gained in multi- ple disciplines into design applications; hence, it is often perceived as applied research and may receive low priority in programs oriented toward basic research.
124 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Nonetheless, there are basic research opportunities associated with generic technologies such as systems engineering, multidisciplinary opti- mization, set-based design, efï¬ciency and accuracy of solvers, physics-based modeling, and multiphysics coupling techniques. These opportunities are particularly relevant for advanced ship concepts where there is often a lack of existing rules-based methods and experimental data and existing tools have not been verified, validated, or accredited for use. Because basic research on ship design tools has a limited range of potential applications and receives meager support from government or private-sector sources, few researchers in the United States are predisposed to perform such research even if increased funding were available from ONR. The analysis of Navy design capabilities cited above noted shortcomings in ONRâs record of developing applicable design tools: âONR-sponsored software is frequently a by-product of research in disciplines of interest to ONR programs. These may or may not align with ship design needs. The user interface of research software is typically barely adequate for the needs of research scientists and can be incomprehensible to a ship design engineer. Additionally, much of the software developed under ONR grants ends up not belonging to the Navy. Lastly, research software rarely has the validation or assured range of applicability one would desire for acquisition designâ (Billingsley 2010, 7). Recognizing a need for increased investment in research on ship design tools, DOD has established the Computational Research and Engineer- ing Acquisition Tools and Environments (CREATE) program to develop and deploy computational engineering tool sets for acquisition engineers. However, this effort is limited in scope compared with the breadth of dis- ciplines involved in naval ship design and the depth (ranging from feasi- bility to detailed design to in-service support) to which they need to be addressed. In summary, the health of basic and early applied research rel- evant to naval ship design tools can only be considered as poor in the United States. Looking to the domestic and international shipbuilding industry to supplement the development of naval ship design tools and methods has had mixed results. The U.S. domestic large commercial vessel market has declined over the past 40 years, while the inland lakes and rivers vessels market has remained fairly robust. The ship design tools developed for
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 125 these segments of the industry have limited application to early-stage naval ship design and physics-based performance modeling, especially for the complex problem of designing and integrating mission systems with naval platforms. Nevertheless, many of the commercial-off-the- shelf (COTS) computer-aided design (CAD) tools for product geometry modeling, general-purpose ï¬nite element analysis, and so forth have found their way into ship design and have been customized for naval use. How- ever, COTS can satisfy only a minority of naval ship design software needs because most naval ship design software needs are highly ship-speciï¬c (Billingsley 2010, 7). The complexity of naval ship design has made neces- sary a combination of COTS and design tools developed by the Navy and shipbuilders (Kassell et al. 2010, 8). Ship design tools research is actively pursued in the commercial sector in Asia (where commercial design and shipbuilding are thriving competi- tive industries) and in Europe. The focus in these markets is on large prod- uct carriers, containerships, passenger ships, and offshore vessels and platforms and therefore has limited applicability and little opportunity for transition to naval combatant ship design. There is a somewhat active international naval design industry, which has produced tools with poten- tial application to early-stage ship design. The products stemming from this enterprise (e.g., the commercially developed Paramarine integrated naval architecture software) are integrated CAD and engineering tools that support naval ship design. The Navy is exploring the utility of such tools from the perspective that a COTS package should be used if it has the required capability, can be reasonably integrated into the design process, and proves to be the most cost-effective solution (Kassell et al. 2010, 9). Automation, Control, and System Integration Research in automation and control is receiving signiï¬cant support from NSF and DOD. Both agencies support basic research, and DOD is the major supporter of applied research. NASA has supported work in this area. Basic and applied research in automation and control outside ONR appear to be strong, in terms of funding and numbers of researchers. In general, controls, embedded systems, and automation are relatively well- funded topics in engineering research today. These activities include research relevant to naval systems. The evident ONR niche in the ï¬eld is
126 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century application to speciï¬c Navy requirements (e.g., robotic underwater vehi- cles). System integration has fewer researchers but is funded by government agencies in addition to the Navy. As with automation and control, the prin- cipal Navy-speciï¬c problems appear to be application to special needs. Platform Power and Energy Power and energy technology is a dynamic ï¬eld driven by developments in computing; telecommunications; and power electronics for industrial, con- sumer, and grid applications. Research and development in power systems is conducted and funded by industry, the Department of Energy, NSF, and DOD. DOD, and in particular the Navy, has been among the leaders in the funding of research to support the design of power systems of up to 100 MW capacity, matching Navy needs. Research on land-based systems can be expected to make a contribution to components and subsystem technologies that meet the Navyâs special power system requirements. The Navy seeks to develop power and energy systems for ships that will be equipped with electric drives and with electrically powered weapons and high-power radars. Because future shipboard systems will be of small physical dimensions and have power demands far exceeding the available onboard generation, the problems and possibilities for ship-based power system control signiï¬cantly differ from those for land-based systems. Each weapon and radar system will not be able to bring its own power system on board, and the future ship power system will be different from the ship sys- tem of the past. Ensuring efï¬cient transition of new power and energy tech- nology to the designers and builders of Navy ships is an urgent concern. State of Research in the S&T Areas: Summary Observations The committeeâs review revealed that some of the S&T areas within the scope of the NNR-NE initiative derive strength from a breadth of related applications. These ï¬elds beneï¬t from a diversity of funding sources and opportunities for cross-fertilization among communities of researchers working under different sponsorship. For example, vibrant research com- munities are devoted to computational ï¬uid dynamics and to structural materials and systems, ï¬elds of research that have broad application in engineering practice in many industries. In these ï¬elds, the tasks for the NNR-NE initiative are to ensure that the Navy takes full advantage of the
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 127 broad pool of researchers that could contribute to solving its high-priority problems and to fund basic and applied research on problems relevant only to Navy applications. Mechanisms for this purpose may include better marketing of ONR support opportunities and establishment of more structured interactions with other sponsoring agencies. In other NNR-NE ï¬elds or subï¬elds (e.g., propulsors and naval hydro- dynamics), ONR and other Navy agencies are nearly the only sources of support. If the Navy were to identify an urgent need to expand research related to naval problems in these ï¬elds, the pool of researchers qualiï¬ed to work immediately on such problems and not already occupied with Navy-sponsored research would be small. The ONR responsibility for sus- taining education and the institutional infrastructure in these ï¬elds is great. Because of the differences between NNR-NE disciplines, ONR activ- ities to fulï¬ll its NNR-NE obligations need to be tailored to the status of each individual ï¬eld. CONTRIBUTION OF ONRâs NNR-NE The committee assessed how ONRâs programs support naval engineering S&T in two steps. First, it examined ONRâs execution of the required ele- ments of the NNR-NE initiative, as deï¬ned in the 2001 and 2010 memo- randa guiding the NNRs: Has ONR carried out all the required activities in a meaningful way? What resources have been devoted to each? Second, the committee examined the composition of ONRâs portfolio of basic and applied naval engineering research. The research portfolio is ONRâs primary means of ensuring scientiï¬c and technical innovation and therefore is at the heart of the NNR-NE. The committee asked whether this portfolio adequately supports the scientiï¬c and technical ï¬elds speciï¬ed in the 2001 memorandum, whether it is of reasonable scale, and whether it appears to be appropriately balanced with respect to disciplines and between basic and applied topics. The committee used ONRâs metrics for the S&T output of its basic and applied research, which include numbers of papers published, numbers of advanced degrees awarded to researchers receiving ONR support, and numbers of projects whose results make the transition to applications. The committee also considered alternative methods and metrics for evaluating the NNR-NE research portfolio.
128 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Execution of the NNR-NE The following subsections describe how ONR has executed each of the major activities speciï¬ed in the 2001 memorandum and the 2010 instruc- tion: investing in the key S&T areas; conducting major ï¬eld experiments; investing in human capital and in S&T physical infrastructure; investing in STEM education; and conducting the functions of planning, periodic review, and external coordination. Investing in Key S&T Areas The investments in key S&T areas that the 2001 memorandum calls for occur through the grants and contracts that ONR regularly awards for basic and applied research. ONR considers supported research projects on speciï¬c topics that are administered by the Ship Systems and Engineering Research Division (ONR 331) to be within the NNR-NE. Investments in these key S&T areas are examined ï¬rst from a funding perspective and then from a quality perspective. Since 2001, ONR has redeï¬ned the technical areas within the NNR-NE. The 2001 memorandum directed that seven areas in naval engineering be considered to constitute the S&T breadth of the NNR-NE: ship design tools, ship structural materials, hydromechanics, advanced hull designs, ship propulsion, ship automation, and systems integration. The task state- ment for the committeeâs study refers to the same seven technical areas and instructs the committee to assess whether they adequately deï¬ne the scope of NNR-NE. By 2010, ONRâs deï¬nition, in the tabulations of NNR-NE research projects provided to the committee, had evolved to six areas, as presented in Table 4-1. This deï¬nition differs from the list of seven key areas identiï¬ed in the 2001 NNR-NE memorandum mainly in the explicit inclusion of platform power and energy in the current list. Annex 4-1 presents ONRâs description of each ï¬eld, including the objective of research in the ï¬eld, important problems, the rationale for inclusion in NNR-NE as a Navy-unique tech- nical issue, and the expected payoff from research in each ï¬eld. Funding for 2006â2009 for each technical area, according to the 2010 NNR-NE deï¬ni- tion, is shown in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3. Figure 4-2 shows 2006â2009 investment by area, and Figure 4-3 shows the distribution of 2006â2009 outlays by area, excluding applied research
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 129 TABLE 4-1 Technical Areas Within the NNR-NE, 2001 and 2010 2001 Memorandum Evolution 2010 ONR Project Tabulations Ship design tools Ship design tools Broadeneda Ship structural materials Structural systems b Hydromechanics Merged Hydromechanics and hull design Advanced hull designs Narrowedc Ship propulsion Propulsors Mergedd Ship automation Automation, control, and system Systems integration integration Newe Platform power and energy a âShip structural materialsâ has been broadened to âstructural systems,â reï¬ecting that, in addition to the materials used, structures are the product of their design and the ways in which the materi- als are used, fastened, and arranged. b âHydromechanicsâ and âadvanced hull designs,â which were listed as separate areas in 2001, have been combined into âhydromechanics and hull design,â reï¬ecting the close relationship of the two areas. cA narrowing of focus has occurred. Problems in the âpropulsorsâ ï¬eld are a subset of the âship propulsionâ area of the 2001 memorandum. dâShip automationâ and âsystems integrationâ have evolved into the âautomation, control, and sys- tem integrationâ area. eâPlatform power and energyâ is now treated as an S&T area, reï¬ecting the importance of integrated electric drive for future combatants using directed energy weapons and to a certain degree address- ing some of the technologies included in the 2001 category of âpropulsionâ and not included in the 2010 category of âpropulsors.â SOURCES: ONR 2001; presentation by J. Pazik to the committee, April 6, 2010. in power and energy. These amounts exclude funding for certain cate- gories of projects that are managed within the Ship Systems and Engi- neering Research Division but are not considered part of the NNR-NE: projects that are not basic and applied research [that is, grants for Bud- get Activity (BA) 3 and advanced technology development] and projects dealing primarily with signatures (including basic and applied research). Some research funded by ONR and contributing to the goals of the NNR-NE may be managed in divisions other than ONR 331, including ocean engineering research in ONR Division 321 and research under the Naval Materials Division (Division 332). The data provided to the committee support the following observations: ⢠In the 2006â2009 period, funding was fairly stable, with no clear trend in any category.
130 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century 22 2006 20 2007 18 2008 16 2009 14 $ Millions 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Automation, Ship Hydromechanics Platform Propulsors Structural Control, System Design Power Systems Integration Tools and Energy FIGURE 4-2 Outlays for naval engineering basic and applied research grants and contracts by ï¬eld, 2006â2009. Platform Power and Energy, basic (6.4) Propulsors (9.1) Hydromechanics (32.8) Automation, Control, System Integration (10.9) Ship Design Tools (12.7) Structural Systems (28.0) FIGURE 4-3 Outlays for naval engineering basic and applied research by ï¬eld as percentage of 2006â2009 total, excluding applied power and energy.
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 131 ⢠Applied projects in platform power and energy dominated funding during 2006â2009, though this important research field was not mentioned in the 2001 memo. This category accounted for 46 percent of 2006â2009 expenditures, and the average applied power and energy grant was much greater than in the other ï¬elds ($1.6 million per year per project versus $126,000 for all other categories). ⢠When applied power and energy is excluded, the major categories of spending are hydrodynamics and structures. ⢠Annual grants are relatively small (excluding applied power and energy), although many projects continue for more than 1 year. A strategy of awarding numerous small grants appears to be followed. For example, in hydrodynamics, 80 awards per year of about $100,000 each are made. The task statement requires that âthe study will assess whether these seven disciplines adequately deï¬ne the scope of NNR-NE.â The commit- teeâs conclusions concerning the deï¬nition of the seven areas (now merged into six) are as follows: ⢠Advances in all of the areas could be considered as innovations in naval ship design. ⢠The committee does not see evidence that any of the six ï¬elds is âmatureâ in the sense that the ï¬eld is unlikely to produce advances that would con- tribute to ship design and performance. ⢠Each of the ï¬elds, when broadly deï¬ned, receives support from sources other than the Navy and has applications beyond naval engi- neering, but the need to maintain scientiï¬c expertise in problems of unique importance to naval engineering justiï¬es including each of the ï¬elds within an NNR. ⢠Power and energy provision will be a critical problem for future naval ships; therefore, this ï¬eld should remain a part of the NNR-NE.3 Because of the nature of the research required, this area will continue to require disproportionate funding. ⢠The major gap in the present deï¬nition is inadequate acknowledgment of the need for basic and early applied research to support the integra- tive function central to the practice of naval engineering. The present 3 It is the committeeâs understanding that ONR basic and early applied research in power and energy may not be managed in the ONR division that houses most of the NNR-NE ï¬elds. The deï¬nition of NNR-NE should not be dictated by organizational arrangements within ONR.
132 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century portfolio in automation, control, and system integration does not appear to fulï¬ll this need. Recommendation: ONR should retain the six ï¬elds of ship design tools; structural systems; hydromechanics and hull design; propulsors; automation, control, and system integration; and platform power and energy in the deï¬nition of the areas of basic and applied research within NNR-NE. The definition should state that all ONR basic and early applied research in these ï¬elds is to be coordinated to meet the goals of the NNR-NE. In particular, basic and early applied research in platform power and energy should be retained in the deï¬nition regardless of where this activity is housed in ONR. In addition, the deï¬nition should explicitly identify multidisciplinary systems engineering as an area of basic and early applied research within NNR-NE. The content of the present system integration portfolio does not address systems engineering as a research discipline. Realizing the ultimate poten- tial value (in terms of contribution to the Navy mission) of a research breakthrough in any one of the six ï¬elds in the present NNR-NE deï¬ni- tion usually depends on advances in other ï¬elds. ONR basic and early applied research should provide an incentive to capitalize on these rela- tionships among the ï¬elds, and explicitly deï¬ning systems engineering as a research category could help achieve that goal. Without an integrated multidisciplinary systems approach, there are likely to be omissions in basic and early applied research and incorrect projections of the pace and direction of technology development, thereby preventing capabilities from being available when needed. Recommendation: The Navy should dedicate an important share of its resources for naval engineering S&T to problems that are expected to have broad applicability to a range of possible future ship programs (e.g., research on power systems and on system integration).4 4 This recommendation is consistent with the ONR Discovery and Invention Portfolioâs objective of providing the Navy with technology options (ONR 2009, 26) and with the long-term perspec- tive that the NNRs are intended to take. It also is consistent with the recommendation of the 2005 National Research Council Committee on DOD Basic Research that DOD should deï¬ne basic research not as research that is designed with no speciï¬c application in mind but rather as research that has the potential for broad rather than speciï¬c application (NRC 2005, 1).
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 133 The committee reviewed the topics of ONR-funded projects in 2006â2009 in each of the NNR-NE ï¬elds (ship design tools; structural sys- tems; hydromechanics and hull design; propulsors; automation, control, and system integration; and platform power and energy), received presen- tations from ONR program ofï¬cers on objectives and accomplishments in each ï¬eld, and received presentations from ONR-sponsored researchers. The committee did not review the content or quality of the products from individual research projects. The committee considered the portfolio of projects within each area from the point of view of intellectual qual- ity, mission alignment, and management commitment and resource adequacy. On the basis of this review, the committee concluded the following: Conclusion: The research portfolios in some of the fields (includ- ing power and energy and structural systems) appear to have strong intellectual quality, are organized around well-defined objectives, demonstrate progress, are aligned with mission needs and potential applications, and are adequately supported. For certain other ï¬elds (including automation, control, and system integration and ship design tools), the intellectual quality and the objec- tives are not evident, and the project portfolios appear to lack cohesion or to be too narrowly focused.5,6 The pattern of funding large numbers of small research projects evident in the portfolios of several NNR-NE fields suggests that the programs in these fields may not be well coordinated toward achieve- ment of a small number of sharply defined goals. A tendency to spread available resources thinly but widely would run counter to the intent of the NNR initiative to ensure that limited resources are sufficiently concentrated to produce results in the most critical ï¬elds (Gaffney et al. 1999, 15). 5 The underlying source of problems in the less strong portfolios may be traceable to the extent and quality of input from users and the research community in the articulation of research needs and in user evaluations of the research products. 6 In some ï¬elds, relevant research is outside the administrative deï¬nition of the NNR-NE. Therefore, the committee did not receive information on these areas, which may address apparent gaps in the NNR-NE portfolio.
134 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Conducting Major Field Experiments The 2001 memorandum specifies that as part of the NNR-NE, ONR is to âconduct major field experiments that integrate various technolo- gies into innovative ship conceptsâ (ONR 2001, 3). With the possible exceptions of some applied projects in the power and energy category, none of the research projects sponsored by NNR-NE described to the committee appear to correspond to such a major field experiment. Applied power and energy projects, funded at an average of $1.6 mil- lion per project per year, are of sufficient scale to match the concept of a major field experiment that the 2001 memorandum calls for. Investing in the Development of New Researchers and in the Research Infrastructure The 2001 memorandum creating the NNR-NE requires ONR to support activities intended to attract and train new researchers and to support the construction and maintenance of physical research facilities. Because the grants and contracts for basic and applied research in the six ï¬elds shown in Table 4-1 are expected to produce new scientiï¬c knowledge, these funds have some impact on ONRâs ability to develop new researchers and the infrastructure needed for that research. In addition, ONRâs deï¬nition of NNR-NE includes certain activities administered within ONR 331 whose main purpose is educational (i.e., activities to attract students and give them experience, rather than to produce new knowledge). The present studyâs task statement emphasizes that the scope of NNR- NE education programs is graduate and postgraduate training for researchers; however, the education spending amounts that ONR reported to the committee as elements of the NNR-NE include some undergradu- ate activities. ONRâs outlays for these educational activities in 2006â2009 totaled $5.3 million. The education projects receiving funding in 2009 and their performing institutions are shown in Table 4-2. Among the primary goals of these programs is engaging undergraduates in research or other- wise exposing undergraduates and primary and secondary school students to naval engineering technology, in order to attract students to study and careers in S&T, and especially in naval engineering. Table 4-3 and Figures 4-4 and 4-5 describe the performing institu- tions and principal investigators for NNR-NE research projects. The data support the following observations:
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 135 TABLE 4-2 Education Projects Receiving Funding in 2009 and Their Performing Institutions Project Institution Naval Systems Undergraduate Research Fellow- Georgia Institute of Technology ship Program for the Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory Atlantic Center for the Innovative Design and Stevens Institute of Technology, with participation Control of Small Ships of U.S. Naval Academy, Naval Postgraduate School, University College London, Florida Atlantic University, Webb Institute, and industry partners Marine Applications of Thermoelectric Materials Maine Maritime Academy Creation of an Unmanned Surface Vehicle Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems Student Competition Recruiting the Next Generation of Naval Massachusetts Institute of Technology Architects Outreach Effort to Attract Young People to Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Technical and Engineering Careers in the Marine IndustryâSeaPerch Technical Support for SeaPerch Underwater Naval Undersea Warfare Center Robotics Student Laboratory Program in Alaska Center for Innovation in Ship Design Innovation NSWC Cell Concepts, Design and Analyses Support National Defense Education Program, U.S. Naval Academy Preengineering Program Navy Collaborations Center for Reforming Undergraduate Education in Electrical Engineering Energy University of Minnesota SystemsâA Critical Infrastructure for National Security ⢠Funding is spread among many universities. ⢠NSWC is a major performer. ⢠Among principal investigators, the median year of receipt of PhD is 1986.5, implying that the median researcher is in his or her early 50s. It is reasonable for ONR to prefer to support researchers with clear records of performance; however, the small share of grants received by
136 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century TABLE 4-3 Institutions Holding ONR Research or Educational Grants or Contracts in the NNR-NE, FY 2009 Number Number Institution of Projects Institution of Projects U.S. universities University of Michigan 10 (except federal institutions) University of Minnesota 5 Arizona State University 1 University of New Orleans 1 Brown University 1 University of Notre Dame 4 California Institute of Technology 5 University of South Carolina 3 California State UniversityâChico 1 University of Texas 2 Carnegie Mellon University 1 University of Utah 1 City University of New York 1 University of Virginia 1 Cornell University 4 Villanova University 1 Duke University 1 Virginia Polytechnic 7 Florida Atlantic University 2 Institute and State University Florida State University 3 Western Michigan University 1 Georgia Tech 7 Navy and other federal Johns Hopkins University 7 government institutions Lehigh University 3 Department of Energy 1 Maine Maritime Academy 1 Naval Academy 7 Massachusetts Institute of 4 Naval Air Warfare Center 2 Technology Naval Postgraduate School 2 Mississippi State University 1 Naval Research Laboratory 5 Northwestern University 5 Naval Surface Warfare Center 46 Pennsylvania State University 2 Naval Undersea Warfare Center 2 Princeton University 3 Private-sector ï¬rms and nonproï¬t Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 3 organizations Stanford University 1 ABB Inc. 1 State University of New YorkâBuffalo 2 Applied Research Associates, Inc. 1 Stevens Institute of Technology 1 Association for Unmanned Temple University 1 Vehicle Systems 1 Tennessee Tech University 1 BMT Designers and Planners, Inc. 1 University of Akron 1 Dynaï¬ow, Inc. 4 University of Arizona 1 Force Technology 2 University of California, Berkeley 2 GE Global Research 1 University. of California, Los Angeles 1 Global Engineering and University of California, San Diego 8 Materials, Inc. 3 University of Delaware 1 Icosystem Corporation 1 University of Florida 1 Science Applications 5 University of Iowa 4 International Corporation University of Kentucky 2 Society of Naval Architects University of Maryland 5 and Marine Engineers 1 University of Massachusetts 2 T-Splines, Inc. 1
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 137 TABLE 4-3 Institutions Holding ONR Research or Educational Grants or Contracts in the NNR-NE, FY 2009 (continued) Number Number Institution of Projects Institution of Projects Foreign research institutions Istituto Nazionale per Studi 2 Bar Ilan Research and 1 ed Esperienze di Development Co., Ltd. Architettura Navale Bulgarian Ship Hydrodynamics 1 Laboratory of Geophysical and 1 Centre Industrial Fluid Flows Centre Internacional de 1 National Maritime Research 1 Mètodes Numèrics Institute en Enginyeria Osaka University 2 Cooperative Research Centre 3 Seoul National University 2 for Advanced Composite Stichting Maritiem Research 2 Structures, Ltd. Instituut Imperial College of Science 1 University of Cambridge 1 and Technology University of Newcastle upon Tyne 1 recent PhDs at least raises a question about the effectiveness of NNR- NE in attracting new researchers. ⢠Principal investigators received their PhDs from diverse academic departments. This suggests that, although naval engineering is a well- defined specialty, naval engineeringârelated S&T is not a distinct 45 40 35 30 Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 before 1970 1970â1979 1980â1989 1990â1999 2000â2009 Year of primary graduate degree FIGURE 4-4 Distribution of naval engineering 2009 grant holders by year of graduate degree. (SOURCE: Tabulations of ONR 331 basic and applied research projects provided to the committee by ONR.)
30 25 20 15 Percent 10 5 0 Mechanical Aeronautical/ Civil Electrical Naval Materials Ocean Physics/ Oceanography Other Engineering/ Aerospace/ Engineering Engineering Architecture Science Engineering Engineering Engineering Aerospace and Physics Mechanics Mechanical Engineering FIGURE 4-5 Department of graduate degree of naval engineering principal investigators, 2009. Note: The count for degrees from mechanical engineering departments may include some degrees awarded in ocean engineering programs housed within mechanical engineering departments.
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 139 discipline. ONRâs challenge is to attract researchers from diverse back- grounds to work on a particular set of problems that are important to the practice of naval engineering. Planning, Review, and Coordination The 2001 memorandum speciï¬es that the resources required to fulï¬ll the NNR-NE be sought annually through ONRâs Investment Balance Review and that the progress and impact of the NNR-NE be externally reviewed every 5 years. In addition, the 2010 and 2007 ONR instructions (ONR 2010; ONR 2007) deï¬ning the criteria for designating new NNRs require that the responsible department report annually on the execution and progress of the NNR and require coordination of the NNR with ONRâs Future Naval Capabilities (FNC) technology transition initiatives and with DARPA. The 2001 memorandum also requires ONR to create con- sortia and partnerships, to award speciï¬c numbers of fellowships, and to issue certain broad agency announcements (See Box 1-2). The descrip- tion of ONR planning and priority-setting for the NNRs provided to the committee (K. Ng, presentation to the committee, May 5, 2010) does not identify these activities explicitly, although some activities may be infor- mally conducted. Assessment of ONR Naval Engineering Discovery and Invention Activities The following subsections assess ONRâs activities in discovery and inven- tion as contributions to achieving the NNR-NE objectives. Activities in each of six research areas are evaluated as well as the activities addressing education and outreach. The committeeâs assessment of the NNR-NE program used the 2010 version of the S&T areas included in NNR-NE and was based on presentations from ONR managers and program ofï¬cers, presentations and discussions with workshop participants, ONR end-of-year reports summarizing program activities and achievements, papers commissioned by the committee, and presentations from ONR-funded researchers. ONR identiï¬es the outputs of its S&T investments as knowledge, tran- sitions, and people (ONR 2009, 4). Chapter 3 describes the metrics of these outputs used by ONR; they include publications and patents awarded as a result of ONR-sponsored research, transitions of results of
140 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century basic and early applied research to use in later-stage applied research and development, and numbers of graduate students and advanced-degree recipients supported by ONR grants. These metrics are indirect measures of the actual beneï¬ts of this research to the Navy and the public. For knowledge, the measures include the number of publications in refereed papers, books, patents, and citations. Assessment based on these measures tends to favor the university component of the naval engineering enterprise, since they are often the end product of the uni- versity participants. Each grant explores fundamental concepts, and the output of the work is documented in papers and presentations that are shared with the global community. The traditional peer-review process helps validate the quality of the work, with citations providing a secondary measure of potential quality. In a similar fashion, the nonâU.S. Navy government laboratories also can be assessed for their contributions to knowledge on the basis of their publication records. In addition to these outputs, the financial investment in each area is a measure of commitment to each component of the naval engineering enterprise. The knowledge component provided by industry is difï¬cult to mea- sure in terms of numbers of publications, patents, and citations. Industry is focused on producing real-world designs and hardware. Industries involved in the naval engineering enterprise typically do not pursue patents on their work because of the restricted nature of the majority of designs, thereby limiting the value of this measure. There are, however, a number of commercial research and development ï¬rms that do focus on the knowledge component, and their output can be measured by using their publication records. For transitions, reliable measures include the number of ONR-funded basic research (BA 1) project results directly leading to applied research (BA 2) projects and the number of transitions to ONRâs Innovative Naval Prototype (INP) and FNC programs.7 A database of ONR projects 7 The FNC program has been designed to facilitate technology transition to the U.S. Navy ï¬eet. A fun- damental component of the FNC program is to establish ï¬eet ownership of the process by creating teams of operating Navy, acquisition, and technical personnel that jointly direct activities address- ing capability needs. FNCs consume approximately one-third of the U.S. Navy S&T budget, with $500 million annually distributed to more than 200 individual projects (http://www.navy.mil/ million annually distributed to more than 200 individual project navydata/transformation/trans-pg92.html). While the FNCs are While the FNCs are near opera- (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/transformation/trans-pg92.html). near operational concepts, the INP program explores technologies that have the potential tohave the potential to introduce a game- tional concepts, the INP program explores technologies that introduce a game-changing impact on the way the Navy on the way the Navy operates. changing impact operates.
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 141 that have transitioned to FNCs and INPs would serve as a valuable tool for assessing the transitions and their associated university, laboratory, or industry sources. ONR management reported to the committee that counts of transitions are used to evaluate the NNRs, but data on NNR- NE transitions were not provided to the committee. The people component of ONRâs S&T output can be measured by numbers of researchers participating, participants in STEM programs, advanced degrees completed by graduate students working on ONR- sponsored projects, and new researchers who received ONR support as students and who join the naval warfare laboratories or who enter the naval engineering industry. Trends of these measures over at least a decade would provide signiï¬cant samples for assessing and identifying the contributions of each component to the naval engineering enterprise. NNR-NE Research Portfolio The committee reviewed the list of ONR-sponsored projects that ONR deï¬nes as within the NNR-NE. The committee received brieï¬ngs from ONR that summarized the content, goals, and accomplishments of research programs in each of the technical areas of the NNR-NE. In addi- tion, ONR-sponsored researchers presented summaries of their work to the committee (see Appendix A). The committeeâs observations concerning the research focus, objec- tives, results, and potential gaps in each of the NNR-NE areas are sum- marized below. Figures 4-6 and 4-7 show the ONR output metrics for each area: the number of papers and book chapters published and the number of investigators, students, and postdoctoral researchers engaged in NNR-NE projects during 2006â2009. ONR reported these metrics to the committee for each ONR program ofï¬cer, and the committee assigned them to technical areas according to the primary area of responsibility of each program ofï¬cer, although some program ofï¬cers may oversee projects in more than one area. The publication metrics show considerable dis- parity among technical areas in the rate of paper and book chapter pro- duction, even after taking into account differences in research spending among the areas. The committee did not have sufï¬cient information to examine the causes of these disparities. The differences suggest that using the metrics to compare productivity among technical areas would be problematic.
All areas 600 80 70 500 60 400 50 Chapters Papers Papers 300 40 Book Chapters 30 200 20 100 10 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ship design tools and structures 140 120 100 Papers 80 Book Chapters 60 40 20 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Structural systems 70 60 50 Papers 40 Book Chapters 30 20 10 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Hydromechanics and hull design 140 120 100 Papers 80 Book Chapters 60 40 20 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 FIGURE 4-6 Journal papers and book chapters published on ONR-sponsored research in naval engineeringârelated topics, 2006â2009.
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 143 Propulsors 35 30 25 Papers 20 Book Chapters 15 10 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Automation, control, and system integration 12 10 8 Papers Book Chapters 6 4 2 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Platform power and energy 250 20 200 15 Chapters Papers 150 Papers 10 Book Chapters 100 5 50 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 FIGURE 4-6 (continued) Journal papers and book chapters published on ONR-sponsored research in naval engineeringâ related topics, 2006â2009.
All areas 500 450 400 PIs 350 300 Grad Students 250 Undergrads 200 Postdocs 150 100 50 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ship design tools and structures 300 250 PIs 200 Grad Students 150 Undergrads 100 Postdocs 50 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Structural systems 40 35 30 PIs 25 Grad Students 20 Undergrads 15 Postdocs 10 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Hydromechanics and hull design 120 100 PIs 80 Grad Students 60 Undergrads 40 Postdocs 20 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 FIGURE 4-7 Principal investigators, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows supported by ONR-sponsored research in naval engineeringârelated topics, 2006â2009.
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 145 Propulsors 30 25 PIs 20 Grad Students 15 Undergrads 10 Postdocs 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Automation, control, and system integration 20 16 PIs 12 Grad Students Undergrads 8 Postdocs 4 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Platform power and energy 250 200 PIs 150 Grad Students Undergrads 100 Postdocs 50 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 FIGURE 4-7 (continued) Principal investigators, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows supported by ONR-sponsored research in naval engineeringârelated topics, 2006â2009.
146 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Ship Design Tools The research associated with ship design tools within ONR is more diffuse than in other S&T areas. This is, to some degree, the result of the broad nature of ship design and the ultimate integration of research in hydrodynamics, structures, and propulsion into research within the ship design domain. Structures, hydrodynamics, and propulsion are integral to the nature of ship design. However, much of the research conducted in these areas is in understanding and predicting physical phenomena or, in the case of propulsion research, is devoted to improvement of machinery elements. Tools developed in the hydrodynamics, structures, and propulsion ï¬elds are intended to serve needs within those areas, and while they may ulti- mately be incorporated into tools that could be used by designers at the ship level, this does not appear to happen routinely. In the course of its information gathering, the committee heard expres- sions of concern from members of the community that ONRâs basic and early applied research is not efï¬ciently leading to development of new or improved practical ship design tools. These concerns appear to vary by technical area, where different standards are used by ONR project ofï¬cers as to what design toolârelated research can be appropriately supported by S&T funding. This was a particular concern in the hydrodynamics area, where the transition to design tools signiï¬cantly lagged the other areas. There may be a need for closer collaboration between ONRâs NNR-NE personnel and technical staffs at NSWC-CD and NAVSEA concerning how design tools that originate from an NNR-NE S&T area should be incorporated in design tools whose purpose is total ship design. In ONRâs presentations to the committee, the objectives and approaches in ship design tools research within NNR-NE were outlined as follows: The objectives are to 1. Reduce platform design cycle time, 2. Reduce acquisition cost through integrated design and software tools, and 3. Extend design options as long as possible. The approaches are to 1. Use set-based design models, 2. Integrate emerging research into physics-based technology perfor- mance evaluation tools,
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 147 3. Complement concept development with analytical tool development, 4. Investigate translation of higher-order physics-based models to faster- running surrogate models appropriate to the order of the needed design ï¬delity, 5. Treat all aspects of design as variables, and 6. Investigate alternative geometric design representations for alterna- tive analytical techniques. The committee made use of the 5th Ship Design Process Workshop at the Center for Innovation in Ship Design (CISD) to evaluate ONRâs use of these approaches. The workshops are jointly supported by ONR, NAVSEA, and the DOD CREATE program. Research discussed at the workshop was performed by university researchers funded by ONR, by employees of CISD (which is staffed by NAVSEA), and by private com- panies funded by ONR. This workshop demonstrated that direction of the ONR ship design tools portfolio is integrated with potential end users of the work. Approach 1, aimed at the development of set-based approaches to the design of complex entities such as ships, is the subject of work being performed with ONR funding. Status reports and discussions of ONR- supported projects addressing Approaches 3, 4, and 5 were also part of the workshop. Work is being done to improve the modeling of the design process itself; a new approach to improving the effectiveness of early-stage design, called continuous collaborative concept formulation, is being explored by a number of participants, including ONR researchers. While ONRâs stated approaches were developed speciï¬cally to support Objectives 1 through 3, some of the objectives are being addressed directly by ONR-funded work. Reducing ship costs by reducing design cycle time is a central objective of the collaboratively performed project of model- ing the design process. This program includes tool capability analysis, staff capability analysis, and planning tools to support acquisition pro- gram managers and ship design managers. The ONR-funded design research at universities is closely aligned with work being done by NAVSEA personnel, who both apply the research and assist the ONR project managers in connecting the research objectives to Navy needs. The BA 1 and BA 2 ship design tools research projects sponsored by ONR and other programs generally are coupled closely with subsequent BA 3 research activities, although those investments
148 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century have been limited by funding availability. In addition, the performers in this research domain usually are well known to each other and have opportunities to communicate through workshops supported by ONR, NAVSEA, and DOD CREATE. Even though university research is funded by ONR and later-stage work is performed by government employees supported by NAVSEA and DOD CREATE, the existence of CISD helps ensure that these various entities are well connected to each other. Structural Systems Structural systems basic and early applied research at ONR appears to receive signiï¬cant attention. The research areas gener- ally have clear potential value to naval engineering. The evident objectives of the NNR-NE structures portfolio include the following: ⢠Developing technologies for life-cycle performance analysis and mon- itoring of ship structural systems; ⢠Understanding the behavior of novel ship structures, such as compos- ite and aluminum subsystems, during and after ï¬re to enable modeling and predictions; ⢠Providing a protection system or armor that can defeat several threats and meet structural and stiffness requirements; and ⢠Facilitating use of alternative hull forms that are lighter, more surviv- able, stealthier, cheaper, easier to maintain, and longer-lived than steel or aluminum hulls. Structural systems research places strong emphasis on structural survivability after fire and explosions and on materials other than steel, such as composite and aluminum structures. In research areas within the portfolio such as ï¬re resistance of composites, blast-resistant polyurea coatings, and fully coupled fluidâstructure interaction simulations, there are breakthrough opportunities. The work on isogeometric analy- sis could lead to a breakthrough in structural and fluidâstructure interaction analysis. In the structural systems portfolio, basic research topics are awarded to academic institutions, and applied research topics are awarded to applied research laboratories such as NSWC-CD, the Naval Research Laboratory, and industry research organizations. The ratio of basic to applied struc-
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 149 tural systems projects is approximately 2:1; however, ONRâs FNC program also conducts applied structures research. Although budgets are limited, there appears to a balance between new and continuing projects. Certain structures topics important for naval engineering are not in the portfolio, including coatings and fatigue life extension. These are topics of basic and early applied research in other ONR divisions not included within the NNR-NE deï¬nition. Other topics that are relevant to naval engineering but administered outside the division responsible for NNR-NE include bearings and lubrication. Navy plans call for building fewer new classes of ships and sustaining the ï¬eet through production of ships according to modiï¬ed versions of exist- ing designs. Existing ships will continue in service longer and be subject to modernizations to extend service life. These decisions have implications for the relative importance of research on structures, design tools, and other technical areas within NNR-NE. The committee could not identify research programs in the NNR-NE portfolio that addressed this future need. During the committee workshops, a number of concerns were expressed by members of the community who identiï¬ed areas that they believed should receive additional attention, including the following: ⢠Development of more efï¬cient structural concepts using high-strength, lightweight materials that are very durable; ⢠Development of computer simulation tools. Research is needed on solving problems associated with multiscale and multiphysics mod- eling, real-time integration of simulation methods, model valida- tion and verification, and the handling of large amounts of data; and ⢠Improved computational efï¬ciency and accuracy of solvers by incor- porating adaptive multiscale techniques and tight multiphysics cou- pling techniques in combination with the use of massively parallel processors. Hydromechanics and Hull Design; Propulsors The two principal themes in the portfolio of recent ONR basic and early applied research in hydromechanics and propulsors are (a) simulation-based analysis and design capabilities to augment or replace traditional physical testâbased
150 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century approaches and (b) targeted research to address high-priority areas in nonacoustic detection, extreme motions, and loads. A major share of ship-related research concerns large-scale computa- tional ï¬uid dynamics. The portfolio includes a signiï¬cant commitment to the conduct of prototype tests by complementary efforts at NSWC- CD. The commitment to testing appears healthy and indicates that ONR recognizes that progress requires a balance between experimental and computational work. Propulsor modeling has a much higher proï¬le than a decade ago, with emphasis on crash-back maneuvers. Investigators are taking diverse approaches to this problem. The objectives of several recent projects are prediction and control of bubbly wake and the understanding of turbulent ï¬ow in the vicinity of contact lines. The need for ever-greater detail in hydrodynamic model- ing is a concern. As computing capability has increased over the years, software tools have been developed to provide discrimination at smaller and smaller scales. It is unclear whether this focus is a valid research direction for prediction of forces, acoustic sources, and other elements of practical relevance at appropriate scales of interest. Current ONR-sponsored propulsor research focuses on unsteady cav- itation, highly separated ï¬ows, hydroacoustics, and advanced propulsor concepts. In addition, as waterjets become more widely used for high- speed vessels, research in cavitation of waterjets is growing. Workshop participants cited the need for improved integration of propulsor and hull hydrodynamic interaction on naval ships and the subsequent integration of such research to develop useful design tools. Other areas noted as in need of greater emphasis include ⢠Predictive tools for propulsor performance in extreme ship motions, ⢠Development of interactive educational tools in propulsor design, ⢠The understanding of unsteady forcing and development of analysis tools required to design vessels with unsteady ï¬ow control, ⢠Improved methods for understanding the effects of turbulence on ï¬uid motion, and ⢠Production of computational ï¬uid dynamics results in near real time. Automation, Control, and System Integration The portfolio in automation, control, and system integration should be growing and
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 151 dynamic because the increasing complexity of ships is a key technical problem confronting naval engineering. However, the focus and overall objectives of the automation, control, and system integration portion of the portfolio were not evident to the committee. The portfolio includes some highly applied projects, but basic research of broad potential applic- ability on system integration, system engineering, and system architecture appears to be absent from the NNR-NE. Recent projects in this research area concern the control of heteroge- neous systems, adaptive automation for machinery control using a total ship approach, and increased cognitive functions of automated systems. Automated testing and design of damage-resilient ship subsystems are also being pursued. These topics are related to the Navyâs desire in recent years to reduce shipboard manning because of its long-term costs; how- ever, the long-term effect on ship readiness of such reduced manning is of growing concern. While progress in these areas holds the promise of transforming ship and vehicle design, the likelihood that such capabilities will bring with them increased vulnerability to system failures and increased (and un- predicted) severity of such failures cannot be ignored. Taking full advan- tage of automation and its integration in system control while avoiding the pitfalls of reduced manning during the evolution of an emergency remains a challenge. It is apparent that automated and âsmartâ systems capabilities will be of growing importance with the emergence of all-electric ships, integrated electric propulsion, and the desire for operations that are both robust and robustly reconï¬gurable. The increased use of autonomous unmanned vehicles and the increased availability of smart sensors make total ship adaptive automated control of heterogeneous systems an alluring goal. Shipboard damage control would likely beneï¬t from research in this area. Historically, this capability has been heavily dependent on signiï¬- cant manpower resources, and many activities required to control or ameliorate damage are heavily dependent on personnel. However, aspects that could beneï¬t from smart automated and adaptive systems remain: the ability to conï¬gure shipboard systems rapidly to survive anticipated hits, systems that detect and evaluate damage and ï¬re spread and provide guidance to crews, and control of deï¬ooding systems.
152 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Platform Power and Energy This research area was not listed in the 2001 ONR memorandum creating the NNR-NE, yet in 2006 through 2009 (the years for which research spending data were provided to the committee) it was the largest component of the NNR-NE portfolio, with the most funding for applied research projects. The research was aimed at supporting development of components and systems for providing shipboard power of very high capacity compared with historical require- ments. As noted in Chapter 3, the Navyâs 2011 research and development budget estimate reports a decline in 2010 in all Navy applied research (BA 2) spending for power and energy. Applied research funding for the budget category âsurface ship and submarine hull mechanical and elec- trical (HM&E)â declined from $79 million in FY 2009 to $46 million in FY 2010 (DON 2010, 135). The budget estimate document states that the decrease is due to the completion of an energy and power technology ini- tiative, apparently a reference to a DOD-wide 5-year program begun in 2002 to coordinate research and development on energy efï¬ciency tech- nology improvements (Taylor et al. 2010). The use of power electronicsâbased integrated power systems (IPS) to manage power and energy needs and efï¬ciency could have great impact on the performance of future Navy ships. ONR has correctly deï¬ned and pursued a research and development plan for such a system. However, gaps in Navy planning threaten the transition of this technology from ONR research and development to application. The deï¬nition of power electronicsâbased IPS and the design of its components, including converters, generators, energy storage systems, and design tools for more conventional ship designs and weapon system power loads, are adequately emphasized. However, there is inadequate research and development on the dynamics of future systems, where weapon load requirements may far exceed the capacity of available gen- eration and therefore large energy storage systems will be essential. The integration of power electronicsâbased IPS into the overall ship design is also not adequately emphasized. Attention to this problem is essential if future ships are to accommodate radar and weapon systems that the Navy may wish to use. Education Initiatives ONRâs support of university research makes an essential contribution to sustaining the supply of researchers available to work on basic and
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 153 applied naval engineering research problems. Beyond this function, ONRâs present conception of the NNR-NE lacks a clear deï¬nition of the scope of the educational activities that are to be considered a part of the initiative. Some provisions of the 2001 memorandum and some descrip- tions of the NNR-NE initiative that ONR presented to the committee indicate that the scope of NNR-NE may include a broader range of edu- cational aims, including STEM education and promotion of training of professional naval engineers. ONR has been assigned primary responsibility for the Navyâs contri- bution to the nationwide STEM initiative. This activity is managed at the corporate level as a single program rather than as separate programs within the divisions. ONR is a suitable home for the activity because its staff understand the importance of the initiative and the elements of scientiï¬c literacy. However, the practical signiï¬cance of managing STEM as an element of the NNRs is not evident. Ensuring an adequate naval engineering professional workforce is a primary concern of NAVSEA, because that command, directly and through its contractors, employs most engineers in the field. However, ONR research grants in naval engineering have an important indirect role in pro- viding the professional workforce. Faculty research funding is essential to the survival of naval engineering professional programs because research ensures the intellectual vibrancy of university academic programs. ONR research investments should be directed according to the value to the Navy of the scientiï¬c knowledge they produce, but the connection between research support and professional workforce supply cannot be overlooked. Contribution of ONRâs NNR-NE: Summary Observations The committeeâs assessment of the NNR-NE began by comparing ONRâs activities since 2001 with the speciï¬ed actions that would be taken to ful- ï¬ll the NNR-NE. The purpose and constituent activities of the NNR-NE according to the 2001 memorandum are summarized in Box 1-2 in Chapter 1. The 2010 and 2007 ONR instructions stating the policy for designat- ing an S&T initiative as an NNR specify activities required in NNR ini- tiatives (ONR 2010, 3â4). The department responsible for an NNR is to ⢠Formulate thrust areas within the ï¬eld to provide S&T products suf- ï¬cient to ensure naval superiority,
154 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century ⢠Coordinate the NNR with other efforts including ONR FNC technol- ogy transition initiatives and activities at DARPA, ⢠Augment basic research with experiments focused on promoting applications and balance theoretical with experimental research, ⢠Promote knowledge base development and retention through a military ofï¬cer fellowship program or an entry-level faculty support program, ⢠Report annually on progress of the NNR, and ⢠Submit the NNR to review by an independent board at least every 5 years. The requirements in the 2010 instruction that are not found in the 2001 memorandum are annual reporting and coordination with FNC and nonâDepartment of the Navy activities. The conclusions below address the degree to which ONR has carried out the required activities. The committee concluded that there are sub- stantial opportunities to improve ONRâs execution of the NNR-NE mis- sion. The speciï¬c conclusions are as follows: ⢠NNR-NE meets a Navy need but requires planning and stronger links to users and researchers. ⢠NNR-NE has not yet gained recognition within or outside ONR as the focus of naval engineering basic and early applied research. ⢠ONR does not appear to have conducted the reporting called for in the 2001 memorandum establishing the NNR-NE. ⢠The role of NNR-NE in the Naval S&T Strategic Plan has not been clearly deï¬ned. ⢠ONR has not deï¬ned the practical signiï¬cance of NNR designation for administration and budgeting. ⢠Some activities called for in the 2001 memorandum or the 2010 instruction have not been undertaken. ⢠The scope of NNR-NE functions and responsibilities with respect to education and relevant research outside the Ship Systems and Engi- neering Research Division lacks clear deï¬nition. Conclusion: NNR-NE meets a Navy need but requires planning and stronger links to users and researchers. The committee concluded that research and educational activities within NNR-NE have fulï¬lled certain of the Navyâs needs to sustain S&T in
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 155 naval engineeringârelated ï¬elds. Speciï¬cally, a diverse research program is supported, and signiï¬cant numbers of graduate and postdoctoral stu- dents are involved (see Figure 4-7). An outreach program is making efforts to attract students into the ï¬eld of naval engineering at the kinder- garten through 12th grade, undergraduate, and graduate levels. Finally, the physical infrastructure of laboratories and equipment, which receives important support through ONR research grants, appears to be adequate for current needs. However, the NNR-NE initiative has yet to reach its potential. In par- ticular, the vision in the 2001 NNR-NE memorandum of systematic and coordinated management of a research portfolio toward attainment of clearly defined objectives has not been fulfilled. ONR has continued to support important basic and applied research in the designated technical ï¬elds, as it did before 2001, but the NNR-NE initiative has not had visibility internally or externally, and the coordination and evalua- tion steps called for in the memorandum have not been conducted con- sistently. Reinvigorating the initiative by returning more closely to the letter and spirit of the 2001 memorandum would enable ONR to achieve the purposes of the initiative more reliably and efï¬ciently. Effectiveness would be increased if ONR developed a more rigorous procedure for deï¬ning meaningful objectives for research in each of the ï¬elds within NNR-NE and measuring progress toward them and if ONR reinforced communications channels between NNR-NE managers and the broad user and research communities. Conclusion: NNR-NE has not yet gained recognition within or out- side ONR as the focus of naval engineering research. ONR created NNR-NE as a mechanism to focus its basic and applied research and education activities in support of naval engineering and to emphasize the importance of technical progress in naval engineering to Navy missions. However, NNR-NE has never attained the intended status or visibility. Marketingâoutreach to the research community to help attract the best talent and ideas and outreach to sponsors and other stakeholders to ensure that the initiative remains relevant to their needs and maintains their supportâis a necessary adjunct to the NNR-NE initiative.
156 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Conclusion: ONR does not appear to have conducted the reporting required by the 2001 memorandum establishing NNR-NE. The management of a collection of ONR activities in a coordinated man- ner to reach a common objective is essential to the NNR concept. The 2010 NNR instruction requires that the responsible department report annually on the execution and progress of the NNR. Regular progress reporting is a necessary step toward ensuring that the elements of NNR- NE are managed as a uniï¬ed initiative and recognized by ONR managers, researchers, and clients as the focal point of naval engineeringârelated basic and early applied research. The 2001 memorandum establishing the NNR-NE specifies that the progress and impact of the NNR-NE be subjected to an external review every 5 years. The committee did not receive documentation of past progress reports or evaluations of the NNR-NE. Conclusion: The role of NNR-NE in the Naval S&T Strategic Plan is not clear. ONRâs 2009 Naval S&T Strategic Plan refers only brieï¬y and generally to the NNRs. The plan states objectives for naval engineering research in such broad terms (e.g., platform survivability, stealth, efï¬cient energy and power systems, ânew and novel advanced platform design,â reduced total ownership cost of naval platforms) that the document appears to be of limited use to research managers in setting priorities and balancing their programs. Correspondingly, ONR has not taken the initiative to relate its NNR-NE portfolio to the Naval S&T Strategic Plan and to communicate the importance of efforts carried out under the NNR to the strategy. This is an essential step in ensuring internal understanding of the critical nature of the NNR-NE and of the merits of providing the NNR-NE ini- tiative with adequate resources. Conclusion: ONR has not deï¬ned the practical administrative signiï¬- cance of NNR designation. The ONR 2001 memorandum establishing the NNR-NE and the 2010 instruction deï¬ning the NNRs do not identify the practical consequences
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 157 of NNR designation, that is, how designation of a portfolio of ONR activ- ities as an NNR alters the management or objectives of the activities. ONR was already engaged in all or nearly all of the activities that the 2001 mem- orandum designated as elements of the NNR-NE before the memoran- dum was issued. The committeeâs understanding is that, rather than initiating new programs, the memorandum served as a declaration of policy: assigning the NNR designation indicated that (a) the listed activ- ities deserve special priority in planning and budgeting at ONR because the identified S&T fields are critical to the Navy and no one else will support them and (b) management of these activities must be coordinated with the declared policy objective in mind. However, the significance of NNR designation is not explicit in the ONR mem- orandum or instruction. Speciï¬c actions that ONR could incorporate in the NNR-NE initia- tive to promote and strengthen naval engineeringârelated research could include periodic evaluations of research output, periodic examinations of the health of the ï¬eld and of the performance of all Navy programs supporting the ï¬eld, procedures for giving priority to the NNR-NE ï¬elds in ONR program planning and budgeting, and management arrange- ments to ensure coordination of all relevant ONR activities toward achieving the shared NNR-NE objectives. Conclusion: Some prescribed NNR-NE activities may not have been undertaken. A number of activities speciï¬ed in the deï¬ning NNR documents have not been completed. The 2010 NNR instruction requires coordination of the NNRs with ONRâs FNC technology transition initiatives and with DARPA. The 2001 NNR-NE memorandum requires ONR to create uni- versityâindustryâlaboratory consortia for fostering naval engineering S&T. The committee was not presented with information on how these requirements have been interpreted and carried out. ONR does not appear to have conducted large-scale ï¬eld experiments within the NNR- NE research project portfolio, with the possible exception of certain power and energy applied research projects, or to have issued special broad agency announcements to fulï¬ll speciï¬c objectives of the NNR- NE, as the 2001 memorandum calls for.
158 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Conclusion: The scope of NNR-NE functions and responsibilities lacks clear deï¬nition. The 2001 NNR-NE memorandum and the 2010 NNR instruction are imprecise as to how naval engineeringârelated basic and applied research conducted by units other than the ONR Ship Systems and Engineering Research Division should be coordinated with NNR-NE and as to the scope of educational activities considered to be within the NNR-NE. The committeeâs assessments of the signiï¬cance of NNR-NE research were complicated by the lack of a full picture of ONR work related to naval engineering. Particularly in the ï¬elds of ship design tools; structures; and automation, control, and system integration, the committee understands that some amount of relevant basic and early applied research is being con- ducted in ONR divisions other than Ship Systems and Engineering Research. Coordination of all relevant ONR research with the objectives of the NNR-NE appears to be missing in the management structure of this initiative. Recommendation: ONR should administer the NNR-NE program with an organization clearly aligned with that envisioned when the NNR-NE was established. To that end, the following actions should be taken: ⢠ONR management should ensure that the elements and objectives of the NNR-NE are communicated to researchers, program ofï¬cers, and research product users. In addition, ONR management should ensure that new activities are within the scope of the NNR-NE and contribute to the initiativeâs objectives. ⢠ONR should develop an enterprisewide information system that would make summary information on NNR-NE research projects readily available to proposers and to ONRâs clients. Summary infor- mation should include an abstract, funding history, and a point of contact for each project. These summaries would be an effective means of informing prospective proposers of ONRâs interests and funding priorities and would help keep ONRâs clients in the Navy and shipbuilding informed of ONR research.
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 159 ⢠ONR should use the information system as a management tool for assessing NNR-NE progress and funding allocation trends; for performance benchmarking; and for communicating NNR-NE progress, achievements, and potential. ⢠ONR should prepare an annual report that compares the yearâs activ- ities with those prescribed in the 2001 memorandum and the 2010 instruction. The annual report would serve as a historical record describing how the NNR designation helped achieve the NNR-NEâs objectives and promoted the coordination of ONR naval engineer- ing activities. ⢠Revisions of the Naval S&T Strategic Plan should delineate the expected contributions of the NNR-NE to the plan. ⢠To fulï¬ll the requirement of the 2001 memorandum for creation of consortia to foster naval engineering S&T, ONR should consider the alternative organizational models for cooperative research proposed by the 2002 National Research Council Committee on Options for Naval Engineering Cooperative Research (TRB 2002). ⢠ONR should revise the deï¬nition of NNR-NE, specifying educa- tional responsibilities and requirements for coordination of naval engineeringârelated basic and applied research outside the Ship Systems and Engineering Research Division. The deï¬nition should specify that all relevant research be coordinated through the NNR-NE, regardless of its location in the ONR organization. Requirements in the 2001 memorandum that have not proved use- ful should be eliminated. REFERENCES Abbreviations DON Department of the Navy NRC National Research Council ONR Ofï¬ce of Naval Research TRB Transportation Research Board Billingsley, D. W. 2010. Engineering a Solution to Ship Acquisition Woes. Proc., American Society of Naval Engineers Day 2010, Arlington, Va., Apr. 8â9, 2010. DON. 2010. Department of the Navy Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates: Justiï¬ca- tion of Estimates: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy: Budget Activity 1â3. Feb.
160 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Gaffney, P., F. E. Saalfeld, and J. F. Petrik. 1999. Science and Technology from an Invest- ment Point of View: How ONR Handles Department of the Navyâs Portfolio. Public Management, Sept.âOct., pp. 12â17. General Dynamics Electric Boat. 2002. The Virginia Class Submarine Program: A Case Study. Feb. Hackett, J. P. 2010. Composites Road to the FleetâA Collaborative Success Story. Paper commissioned by the committee, June 18. Hagan, J. 2010. Human Systems Integration/Crew Design Process Development in the Zumwalt Destroyer ProgramâA Case Study in the Importance of Wide Collaboration. Paper commissioned by the committee, June 1. Kassell, B., S. Cooper, and A. MacKenna. 2010. Rebuilding the NAVSEA Early Stage Ship Design Environment. Proc., American Society of Naval Engineers Day 2010, Arlington, Va., Apr. 8â9, 2010. Keane, R. G., Jr. 2011. Reducing Total Ownership Cost: Designing Inside-Out of the Hull. Proc., American Society of Naval Engineers Day 2011, Arlington, Va., Feb. 10â11, 2011. Keane, R. G., Jr., H. Fireman, and D. W. Billingsley. 2005. Leading a Sea Change in Naval Ship Design: Toward Collaborative Product Development. Proc., Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Ship Production Symposium. Kiss, R. K. 2010. Examining the Science and Technology Enterprise in Naval Engineer- ing: Workforce and Education. Paper commissioned by the committee, May 13. NRC. 2005. Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. ONR. 2001. Memorandum: National Naval Program for Naval Engineering. Oct. 22. ONR. 2007. Department of the Navy Science and Technology National Naval Responsi- bility Initiative. ONR Instruction 5250.1. March 19. ONR. 2009. Naval S&T Strategic Plan: Deï¬ning the Strategic Direction for Tomorrow. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA499909&Location=U2&doc- =GetTRDoc.pdf. ONR. 2010. Department of the Navy Science and Technology National Naval Responsi- bility Initiative. ONR Instruction 5250.1A. July 26. Taylor, J., J. L. Price, and D. K. Phelps. 2010. Energy and Power Community of Interest: Energy and Power S&T Overview. Presented at 46th AIAAâASMEâSAEâASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit and 8th International Energy Conversion Engi- neering Conference, Nashville, Tenn., July 28. TRB. 2002. Special Report 266: Naval Engineering: Alternative Approaches for Organizing Cooperative Research. National Academies, Washington, D.C. Triantafyllou, M. 2010. Science and Technology Challenges and Potential Game Chang- ing Opportunities. Paper commissioned by the committee, May.
Annex 4-1 NNR-NE Scientiï¬c and Technical Areas Deï¬nitions and Rationales ONR provided the committee with the lists below, which summarize the objective, approach, Navy-unique characteristics, and expected payoff of the ONR research portfolio in each of ï¬ve of the NNR-NE technical areasâhydromechanics and hull design; structures; propulsors; auto- mation, control, and system integration; and ship design toolsâand for the educational grant component of the NNR-NE.8 ONR did not provide such a list for the platform power and energy technical area. HYDROMECHANICS AND HULL DESIGN Objective: ⢠Identify, understand, predict and control the fundamental phenom- ena of turbulence, cavitation, breaking waves, bubble generation and hydroacoustics. ⢠Develop reliable physics-based computational prediction capabilities to limit hydrodynamic surprises for new platforms. Approach: ⢠Understand the independent and coupled roles of roughness, various geometry complexities, drag reduction technologies, hydroacoustic sources, separated ï¬ows, unsteadiness, etc. on turbulent ï¬ows. ⢠Develop theoretical and computational tools that have sufï¬cient physics to accurately predict performance. 8 Presentation by J. Pazik to the committee, April 6, 2010. 161
162 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century ⢠Understand the independent and coupled roles of geometry and ï¬uid properties (e.g., density proï¬les) on wake physics. ⢠Study the interaction of platforms in close proximity. ⢠Explore hydrodynamics of motions (e.g., interaction of flows be- tween hulls), seaway effects (e.g., maneuvering in waves), and shape optimization. ⢠Develop wave measurement from radar, fast wave prediction, and appropriate ship response. Navy Unique: ⢠Potential for radical or violent maneuvers used to defend against attack. ⢠Requirement to operate in all sea states. ⢠Replenishment at sea. ⢠Frequent course changes. ⢠Operations in deep and shallow waters. ⢠Stealth. Payoff: ⢠Establishment of safe operating envelope for vessels in extreme sea states. ⢠Physics-based computation methods. ⢠Knowledge databases for understanding and tool validation. ⢠Computational tools, including shape optimization. ⢠Advanced hull form designs and operability. ⢠Energy-efï¬cient hull forms. STRUCTURES Objective: ⢠Develop technologies for life cycle performance analysis and moni- toring of ship structural systems. ⢠Develop an understanding of behavior of novel ship structures, such as composite or aluminum subsystems, during and after ï¬re to enable modeling and prediction. ⢠Provide protection system and armor that can defeat several threats and meet structural and stiffness requirements.
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 163 ⢠Facilitate use of alternative hull forms that are lighter, more surviv- able, stealthier, cheaper, easier to maintain and have a longer life than steel or aluminum hulls. Approach: ⢠Develop reliability-based, structural performance and degradation models and supporting technologies. ⢠Develop ship structural health monitoring technologies to provide basis for life-cycle management and operator guidance. ⢠Develop vulnerability assessment capability for light-weight ship structures based upon an improved understanding of material and structural response and life-cycle degradation effects. ⢠Develop the ability to model the failure of naval composite structures under air blast and after ï¬re. ⢠Develop models describing the effect of the implosion of a pressure vessel. Navy Unique: ⢠Composites and lightweight structures improve stealth and reduce weight, corrosion, fatigue, and maintenance and operational costs. ⢠Rules and tools necessary to develop novel systems with tailored response against shock and impact that minimize damage on structures, vehicles, personnel and sensitive equipment is needed. Payoff: ⢠Advanced structural health monitoring systems that will sustain the life of naval vessels. ⢠Tools that will assess the performance of new structural components in naval vessels. ⢠Comprehensive, integrated toolsets and processes to accurately assess the stability and structural integrity of a damaged ship. ⢠Understanding of heat conduction, charring, buckling, and residual strength of composites under simultaneous heat and load. ⢠Predictive tools on long-term availability.
164 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century PROPULSORS Objective: ⢠Improve propulsive efï¬ciency and optimize propulsor for given Naval application. ⢠Provide the Navy with quiet, efï¬cient and affordable propulsor con- cepts and capabilities that will meet emerging mission requirements. Approach: ⢠Evaluate novel design such as counter-rotating props for fuel efï¬ciency. ⢠Exploit novel materials in the design of the propulsor to improve hydrodynamic efï¬ciency and blade performance. ⢠Develop accurate, reliable and robust predictiveâsimulation tools and methods for design and behavior of propulsors. ⢠Explore and demonstrate at lab-scale novel propulsor concepts. Navy Unique: ⢠Navy propulsors must be able to survive high intensity impulse loads caused by underwater explosions. ⢠Navy propulsors must also be efï¬cient, affordable, quiet and easily maintained. ⢠Integrated with naval platforms. Payoff: ⢠Propulsion options for high-speed ships that support critical missions. ⢠Efficient and robust models to advance fundamental knowledge of rotating marine structures which operate with complex, turbulent flows. ⢠Advanced waterjet design and analysis technology. ⢠Understanding of the fundamental aspects of two-phase propulsion. AUTOMATION, CONTROL, AND SYSTEM INTEGRATION Objective: ⢠Develop science and technology necessary to demonstrate distrib- uted monitoring and control of hull and mechanical and electrical
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 165 systems for Navy vessels (including electrical, auxiliary, and dam- age control systems). ⢠Develop and prototype an autonomous, distributed control system featuring the integration of ï¬uid, thermal, and power systems. Approach: ⢠Construct a reduced-scale hardware in-the-loop evaluation platform for agent-based control system testingâwarship intelligent control system multi-institution demonstrator. ⢠Perform hardware in-the-loop test and evaluation. ⢠Develop medium-scale integration of NAVSEA-Philadelphia ï¬uid and thermal systems with remote Purdue power system test bed. ⢠Develop and demonstrate an intracompartmental integrated wireless sensing and data network. ⢠Investigate actuation technologies and approaches. ⢠Develop rapid damage recoverability decision support for structural system to support the ï¬eet with existing and future ships and vessels. Navy Unique: ⢠Navy ships are complex platforms composed of disparate systems where interactions and interdependencies are extensive and nonlinear. ⢠Overall system behavior cannot be inferred from the analysis of an individual portion. ⢠The dynamic environment with the potential of severe stresses is unique to naval platforms. ⢠True automation provides increased platform performance, faster deci- sion time, increased survivability and recoverability, optimal manning, and increased safety. Payoff: ⢠Demonstrated distributed monitoring and control architectures. ⢠Integrated, automated operation and reconï¬guration of shipboard machinery systems. ⢠Optimized manning, survivability, and recoverability.
166 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century SHIP DESIGN TOOLS Objective: ⢠Reduce platform design cycle time. ⢠Reduce acquisition cost through integrated design and software tools. ⢠Extend design options as long as possible. Approach: ⢠Set based approaches. ⢠Integrate emerging research results into physics-based, technology performance evaluation tools. ⢠Complement concept development activity with analytical tool devel- opment and model testing. ⢠Investigate translation of higher order physics-based models to quicker running surrogate models appropriate to order of design ï¬delity. ⢠Determine methodologies to treat all aspects of the design as a vari- able. ⢠Investigate alternative geometric design representations for alterna- tive analytical techniques. Navy Unique: ⢠Integration of complex war-ï¬ghting systems. ⢠Large variability in operational proï¬le. ⢠Interfaces with proprietary design software. Payoff: ⢠Support for innovative design concepts. ⢠Provision of traceability in design process applications. ⢠Intelligent search of design space. ⢠Provision of methodology to deal with uncertainty and variability of inputs and designs. ⢠Systems optimization.
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 167 EDUCATION AND UNIVERSITY LABORATORY INITIATIVE Objective: ⢠Provide capable and knowledgeable future workforce in Naval engineering. ⢠Maintain and enhance education infrastructure (programs, depart- ments) to ensure education and research programs. Approach: ⢠Partner with professional societies to create venues for student inter- action with Navy labs, design agents, and focus universities. ⢠Leverage existing K-12 technology education infrastructure. ⢠Include real world Navy challenges. ⢠Leverage existing programs in outreach and education. ⢠Expand existing local programs. ⢠Insert outreach efforts into undergraduate level engineering courses. ⢠Focus ONR efforts on advanced degree capabilities. Navy Unique: ⢠U.S. citizens required to work in naval facilities. ⢠Engineering optimizations in platform design and build different than private sector. ⢠Undersea naval engineering opportunities very limited in private sector. ⢠Amphibious capabilities. Payoff: ⢠Development of an Experimental Introduction to Marine Engineering. ⢠Increase in student awareness of Naval Engineering course of study. ⢠Expansion of Sea Perch Program using Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. ⢠Expansion of number of teams participating in Autonomous Under- water Vehicle Competition. ⢠Feedback from schoolsâenrollment in these programs is increasing, direct links to this effort.
Annex 4-2 Earlier Assessments of the State of Naval Engineering The 2001 ONR memorandum that created the NNR-NE cited the con- clusions of a number of assessments of the status of naval engineering in the United States as evidence of the need for the Navy to take a leading role in investment in science and technology in the ï¬eld (National Naval Program for Naval Engineering, Oct. 22, p. 1). Below are summaries of the following studies cited in the memorandum: ⢠National Research Council. 1996. Shipbuilding Technology and Edu- cation. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. ⢠American Society of Naval Engineers. 1998. Preserving Our Naval Engineering Capability. Naval Engineers Journal, May. ⢠Chryssostomidis, C., M. Bernitsas, and D. Burke, Jr. 2000. Naval Engi- neering: A National Naval Obligation. Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology Ocean Engineering Design Laboratory, May. ⢠National Research Council. 2000. An Assessment of Naval Hydromechan- ics Science and Technology. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. ⢠U.S. Department of Commerce. 2001. National Security Assessment of the U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Industry. May. ⢠Transportation Research Board. 2002. Special Report 266: Naval Engi- neering: Alternative Approaches for Organizing Cooperative Research. National Academies, Washington, D.C. National Research Council, Shipbuilding Technology and Education, 1996 The following were among the ï¬ndings of this study: ⢠ONR should continue to support faculty members through fel- lowships, through research projects directed at Navy objectives, 168
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 169 and, to the extent possible, through projects that have economic impacts. ⢠Naval architecture and marine engineering schools should become more involved with the U.S. shipbuilding industry through research in business-process, system, and ship-production technologies, as well as by soliciting support for these and other kinds of research. The schools should continue concentrating on subjects traditionally taught but should also pay much greater attention to the economic health of the industry. Universities, with their multiple disciplines, led by the naval architects and marine engineers who justiï¬ably lay claim to being good systems thinkers, should be able to seize the problem that U.S. shipbuilders face; understand what it will take to create a healthy industry; and reach as far aï¬eld as needed to understand the cultures, political motivations, and economic infrastructures of inter- national competitors. The focus of this study was naval architecture and marine engineering, and early activity related to the NNR-NE tended to have this perspec- tive. Naval engineering as it is now understood embraces many more academic and professional disciplines, though naval architecture and marine engineering are largely seen as key contributors to total ship engineering. Appreciation of this total ship approach has increased in recent years. American Society of Naval Engineers, âPreserving Our Naval Engineering Capability,â 1998 The American Society of Naval Engineers undertook the development of a white paper speciï¬cally addressing the need to maintain a robust naval engineering capability, in all its facets, in the United States. In this paper, the reader can see the developing line of thinking that led to ONRâs establishment of the NNR-NE. The paper contains the following discus- sion and recommendations: ⢠The problem [of maintaining a robust naval engineering capability] is not just a shipyard or ship design issue. It involves the full spectrum of naval engineering including
170 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century â The research, development and operational evaluation of command control, weapon systems, ordnance, aircraft and ship mechanical and electrical machinery; â The engineering and integration of the individual command control, weapon and machinery systems into effective combat, electrical and propulsion systems; â The physical and functional integration of these systems into com- batant ship designs. ⢠Unless there is a national commitment to a design and construction program in the years ahead, we cannot expect to attract engineering students into the profession, . . . universities . . . will be forced to elim- inate their naval engineering curricula. There must be challenging and interesting career opportunities. . . . This reinforces the necessity for the U.S. to commit to sustain at least a minimum level of naval engi- neering, design and construction activity. ⢠Commitment to a scaled down but aggressive weapons and ship sys- tems R&D program coupled with the periodic construction of at least a few complex warships of new design is essential if the U.S. is to retain naval technological and warï¬ghting supremacy. Recommendations: ⢠[The Navy should make a commitment to] . . . a planned, budgeted program for periodic ship design and construction. ⢠[The Navy and others should make a long-term commitment to] . . . sustain naval engineering education. ⢠[The Navy needs to] . . . produce a plan. C. Chryssostomidis, M. Bernitsas, and D. Burke, Jr., Naval Engineering: A National Naval Obligation, 2000 This study also focused signiï¬cantly on naval architecture and marine engineering. An excerpt from this paper follows: As part of its national obligations, ONR must ensure U.S. world leadership in those unique technology areas that insure naval superiority. ONR accomplishes this mission through research, recruitment and education, maintaining an
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 171 adequate base of talent, and sustaining critical infrastructure for research and experimentation. One critical area requiring support by ONR is the âknowledge infrastructureâ in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. National Research Council, An Assessment of Naval Hydromechanics Science and Technology, 2000 As is apparent from the title, this study focused on one important aspect of naval engineering: hydromechanics. In this study the following state- ment appears: Historically, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) has promoted the world leadership of the United States in naval hydromechanics by sponsoring a research program focused on long-term S&T problems of interest to the Department of the Navy, by maintaining a pipeline of new scientists and engineers, and by developing products that ensure naval superiority. The committee restated the objectives of the NNR-NE and then stated the following: The assumption of national responsibility for the support of a research area requires the long-term commitment of a signiï¬cant level of investment. The committee is concerned that ONR support for research in ship and sub- marine hydromechanics and, in turn, the output of new ideas and technol- ogy have declined over the past decade. The current system relies partially on funding made available from major acquisition programs, which in turn produces dramatic variations in the funding for naval research. ONR should establish an institute for naval hydrodynamics (INH) subject to the following guidelines: 1. The INH should capture the best talents and the largest body of knowl- edge in hydromechanics from the United States and foreign countries. It should leverage existing funding and ensure a well-coordinated approach to research in hydromechanics. 2. The INH should be directed by a highly qualiï¬ed scientiï¬c leader. The management style and philosophy should be in tune with the intellectual creativity expected of participants in the INH. 3. A small central facility should support the INH. This facility should be open to all INH participants.
172 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century 4. The form of the center should be carefully determined. One attractive option would be a virtual center that uses distributed assets and extensive Internet communication. The virtual center would have a management committee and a small central supporting entity. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Security Assessment of the U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Industry, 2001 This study, centered as it was on the shipbuilders, largely conï¬ned itself to the needs of those facilities to improve the process of construction. The historical focus of the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), referred to below, has been on improving the competitiveness and process efï¬ciency of U.S. shipbuilders. The report states the following: A key reason for U.S. warship superiority has been the shipbuilding research and development (R&D) expertise that currently resides . . . [in] the Navyâs laboratories, acquisition commands and certain shipbuilders and universities. An existing effort to bolster the shipbuilding R&D infrastructure is the National Shipbuilding Research Project Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP ASE). The U.S. Navy and the 11 major shipbuilders that comprise NSRP are jointly funding R&D costs. The reportâs conclusions did not address R&D. Transportation Research Board, Naval Engineering: Alternative Approaches for Organizing Cooperative Research, 2002 This report concentrated on the evaluation of alternative structures for the management of research and used the current ONR principal investigator model as the baseline for comparison. Three alternative models were con- sidered, and committee members strove to assess how well the varied man- agement structures would perform R&D that supports Navy needs. The evaluations of the three alternative structures were not based on the eval- uation of actual enterprises. The following excerpts are from the study: The Navy is facing serious limitations related to an adequate supply of the cre- ative talent and knowledge base needed. ONR also lacks sufï¬cient personnel with broad, interdisciplinary experience. ONR stressed the importance of an approach to research that incorporates total systems aspects of the naval
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 173 engineering discipline. . . . The committee was able to describe and evaluate only the alternative organizational models that were presented to it and that are the leading contenders for consideration by ONR. ONR has two overall goals that it needs to achieve in adopting a model for naval engineering cooperative research: (a) to maintain and develop human capital and (b) to revitalize naval engineering and improve ship design and production. Naval engineering graduates and practicing professionals need to approach ship design, development, and production/construction from the âtotal shipâ point of view in order to meet the challenges of the future Navy. Hence, the concept of âtotal ship engineerâ must be infused into the education and pro- fessional development of future naval engineers. With regard to the second ONR goal, there is a critical need for the U.S. ship design community to revitalize its ability to accomplish creative new research and to support higher-performing, cost-effective designs and more innova- tive ship systems engineering. In addition, research results need to be trans- ferred to the next stage of technology development and used in actual ship designs. Organizational models considered: individual principal investigator (current practice); professional society/community of practitioners model; consor- tium model; project-centered model. The committee found that all three models for cooperative research organi- zations that it evaluated are capable of meeting all of ONRâs program objec- tives. No speciï¬c cooperative model was recommended. An interesting feature of this study is the significant and repeated emphasis on âtotal shipâ methods, approaches, and education. This appears to be consistent with the recognition that more than research is necessary to stay at the forefront of knowledge in specific scientific fields: it is essential to develop and keep healthy the national ability to pull knowledge together as needed to support the design of the large, complex structures that are Navy ships. The marrying and integration of technologies are at least as important to the final result as are the technologies themselves.