4.C-LGIP_Sample_Objectives_20201119.pdf

FA820321R0002

19 November 2020

C-LGIP Sample Objectives

SAMPLE OBJECTIVES

FOR

COMPREHENSIVE LANDING GEAR INTEGRITY PROGRAM (C-LGIP)

1. PURPOSE:

1.1. This document provides a sample of the Government’s key program objectives for the Comprehensive Landing Gear Integrity Program (C-LGIP). The Contractor must ensure all aspects of the sample objectives are addressed in their proposals. The proposals must specify in clear, understandable terms the work to be performed by the Contractor, their teaming partners and subcontractors. If a teaming arrangement is proposed, the proposal must include a copy of the teaming arrangement signed by all parties.

2. BACKGROUND:

2.1. The 417 Supply Chain Management Squadron (417 SCMS) has worked a number of integrity programs in the past, but these were limited in their scope. More specifically, these previous efforts focused solely on structurally critical components, rather than all components critical to the function of the landing gear system. Age-based failure events, such as the 2017 grounding of the C-5 fleet, highlighted the need for a comprehensive landing gear integrity program that encompasses all Air Force (AF) managed weapon systems. The output of the C- LGIP will enable 417 SCMS to proactively manage both the safety and supportability risks associated with all AF landing gear systems that fall under its engineering authority.

3. SCOPE:

3.1. This C-LGIP program will develop and execute objectives for landing gear systems utilizing AFI63-101/20-101 Integrated Life Cycle Management, MIL-STD-1530 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP), MIL-STD-1798 Mechanical Equipment and Subsystems Integrity Program (MECSIP), and Draft SAE ARP6412 Recommended Practice for Landing Gear Integrity Programs (included in Appendix A). Air Force ASIP and MECSIP requirements specify that structural and functional integrity be maintained for the life of the aircraft to ensure Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness (OSS&E) of the weapon system. This requires the design service life and service history for all landing gear components be known and monitored; however, these criteria have not been efficiently tracked or monitored. It is also possible that operational loads and fatigue spectrum have shifted over time, and therefore the remaining service life of landing gear components is unknown and needs to be analyzed. Additionally, the condition of all landing gear components in relation to their service history needs to be understood, to enable the supply chain to take proactive steps to ensure uninterrupted spares supportability. The sample objectives of the C-LGIP, outlined below, are examples of requirements used to develop the tools and technical data necessary to ensure integrity throughout the weapon system’s remaining operational service life. Again, the Government strongly encourages Contractors to bring forward innovative approaches as part of their proposals.

3.2. The following high-level questions are intended to be answered by this program, however, this is not intended to be an all-inclusive list:

- How is the landing gear performing and what deficiencies (age based, design based, supply chain management based, etc.) should be addressed?

- What are the risks (safety, supportability, economic, etc.) associated with the identified deficiencies and what should be done to mitigate the risks?

- Given the efforts made on prior LGIPs (see Appendix A), how can the LGIP approach be improved and what innovations can be made?

4. SAMPLE OBJECTIVES:

4.1. For the purposes of this solicitation the prospective Contractors must provide a detailed step-by-step approach for how they will conduct each of the following objectives on landing gear systems during Task Order (TO) execution.

Objective 1: Integration of C-LGIP Data into Teamcenter

For each C-LGIP TO the Contractor will be responsible for integration of C-LGIP data, in accordance with USAF AFI 63-1201 (Life Cycle Systems Engineering) and AFMCI 63-1201 (Implementing OSS&E and Life Cycle Systems Engineering), into Siemens Teamcenter Product Lifecycle Management (PLM). The objective of this task is to develop a well-documented and detailed Configuration Management (CM) structure within USAF Teamcenter for the landing gear of each weapon system managed by the 417 SCMS. The proposed Teamcenter structure shall include information for how the Contractor will organize and provision weapon-system specific Engineering Bill of Material (E-BOM) structures, workflows, and object types. Additionally, the Contractor will be required to incorporate existing component digital and hardcopy data into the Teamcenter structure. Finally, the Contractor must show how this management tool will satisfy the CM requirements of the applicable AFI and AFMCI.

Objective 2: Probabilistic Age Assessment

Each TO will require the Contractor to perform a MATLAB-based probabilistic age analysis of landing gear assemblies and their associated components (under 417 SCMS engineering authority, including wheels, brakes, antiskid system and associated hardware, but excluding consumables) currently in service or in supply. Currently, landing gear components do not have their usage serially tracked, therefore, a probabilistic approach is required to quantify the age of components. This information, when coupled with the data from other tasks in this program, will provide the information required for the service life risk assessment, see Objective 6. Additionally, the Contractor must develop a plan and outline at least one approach to address components with complete, partial, or no procurement history and varied historical configurations.

Objective 3: Analytical Condition Inspection (ACI) and Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) Analysis

Each TO will require the Contractor to conduct ACI and RAM analyses of landing gear assemblies and their associated components (under 417 SCMS engineering authority, including wheels, brakes, valves and associated hardware) currently in service and in supply. Landing gear systems of several aircraft have assemblies/components, which are currently not overhauled on a regular basis, meaning they are never overhauled or their maintenance cycle exceeds that of the Program Depot Maintenance (PDM) cycle of the aircraft. These assemblies/components should be the focus of the ACI, which serves to determine the current condition of the respective items. All other components shall be considered for inclusion in the RAM analysis, which will entail evaluating all available data systems [REMIS, AFMC Form 202 records, Technical Order 00-25-107 Technical Assistance Request (TAR) records, Joint Deficiency Reporting System (JDRS), Product Deficiency Reporting and Evaluation Program (PDREP), Landing Gear Met Lab Failure Reports, the Air Force Safety Automated System (AFSAS), etc.] for discrepancy trends.

The Contractor will be required to arrange for, and conduct, on-site inspections at Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) facilities and/or Active Duty and/or Reserve Bases. The objective of this task is to identify existing or developing failure modes, such as wear, corrosion, cracking, impact damage, thermal effects, grease or hydraulic oil degradation, etc.; determine the remaining assembly/component life for the fleet population, develop mitigation strategies and document the results.

Objective 4: Landing Gear Modeling, Structural Analysis, and Fatigue Analysis

Each TO will require the Contractor to develop and validate 3D models of the weapon system’s landing gear using Solidworks. For components with unknown geometries (e.g.

proprietary parts, missing drawings, ambiguous drawings, etc.) and/or that lack sufficient supply for reverse engineering techniques, the Contractor must provide a robust process for reliably estimating these geometries based upon known envelope and sub-systems design parameters. Using the developed models the contractor will perform static structural analysis including 1G, limit, and ultimate loading using linear elastic analysis with Ansys and non-linear material analysis on all components that surpass yield strength. The contractor will also perform fatigue analysis of landing gear assemblies and their associated components using nCode Designlife. These analyses will require using Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) developed loads for the structural analysis and a developed operational load spectrum, see Objective 5, for the fatigue analysis. Models and analyses are to be developed following the requirements specified in the ‘Landing Gear Structural Analysis’ drawing provided in Appendix A. Additionally, the Contractor will be required to convert OEM static stress manual data into a digital format for use by 417 SCMS engineering, see Appendix B for spreadsheet requirements. These digital stress manual calculations shall be compared to the FEA results to determine if any discrepancies exist. Material property information from the 417 SCMS material library will be for use during the fatigue analyses, see Appendix C. However, in the event a component requires analysis for which the material property data is not available the

Contractor will need to obtain or develop the material properties for the material in question abiding by the requirements of ASTM E606.

Objective 5: Fatigue Spectrum Determination

Each TO will require the Contractor to plan, coordinate, and execute an on-aircraft load survey for the landing gear system as well as collect and analyze fleet usage data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) system, or equivalent. The data gathered from the load survey will need to be correlated with the fleet usage data to develop an operational loads spectrum. This task will include instrumenting and calibrating full nose/main landing gear assemblies and developing a test plan that will capture loading conditions necessary for development of a loads spectrum representative of current aircraft usage. The Contractor will be required to coordinate technical planning and logistics with the 417 SCMS and other pertinent organizations, as required. The Contractor will be expected to support the C-LGIP team in obtaining the necessary temporary aircraft modification approvals and coordinating all related activities with the System Program Office (SPO), SPO designated responsible test activity, flight test unit(s), and all other applicable stakeholders necessary to conduct a loads survey. The objective of this task is to develop a current operational loads spectrum for both the nose and main landing gear assemblies and document the results for use in fatigue analyses in nCode Designlife.

Objective 6: Service Life Risk Assessment

Each TO will require the Contractor to establish remaining service life by determining probability of failure for landing gear assemblies and their associated components (under 417 SCMS engineering authority including wheels, brakes, brake control valve and associated hardware), that are both structurally and functionally critical and currently in service. This task will require the Contractor to identify the original design methodology of each component (e.g. safe-life, fail-safe, redundant, inherently improbable, leak-before-burst, or any other applicable design methodology identified in MIL-STD-1530 and/or MIL-STD-1798) and confirm whether the original methodology is still appropriate, based on data gathered from the other tasks in this program, or whether it needs to be re-classified. Based on the data obtained from other tasks, the Contractor will then need to determine the remaining service life of landing gear assemblies/components based on the original (or reclassified) design methodology. The objective of this task is to use a MATLAB-based analysis to assess the landing gear system’s ability to perform without mishap or degradation due to past, current, and anticipated future operational requirements and document the results of these analyses. This will be done by identifying assemblies/components that are at risk of failure (either currently, or within the next 10 years) and performing a risk assessment in accordance with MIL-STD-882.

Previously this objective has been accomplished creating a cumulative failure probability density function using a Birnbaum-Saunders distribution, reference past LGIP efforts included in Appendix A.

5. OPERATING CONSTRAINTS:

5.1. The primary operating constraint for this program is the availability of Government

Furnished Property (GFP). It is anticipated the landing gear shipset will not be available at contract award due to pending scheduling arrangements with Landing Gear Depot production facility. Additionally, unforeseen scheduling issues could arise between Contractor, PDM, Active Duty units, and Landing Gear Overhaul Depot in order to accomplish program objectives.

5.2. It is expected that all necessary subcontracting efforts will be completed, funded, and directed by the Contractor.

5.3. During the course of this effort, the government will provide all available data pertinent to each task. However, the Contractor may be required to develop mitigation strategies when data is missing or otherwise not available to the government.

6. PERIOD AND PLACE OF PERFORMANCE:

6.1. The majority of the work will take place at the Contractor’s facility. Other places of performance include PDM line, Landing Gear Overhaul Depot at Hill AFB, Contractor Overhaul Facilities, FLT test center, and various Active Duty and/or Reserve Base locations. Period of performance for each TO is estimated to be between 4 and 6 years.

7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

7.1. The Government will provide the best available historical data for original landing gear loads spectrum and fatigue life calculations. It may be necessary for the Contractor to enter into agreements with the aircraft OEM or landing gear OEM for data usage rights. The notional Integrated Master Schedule must allow reasonable time for Government technical reviews and approvals at critical program milestones.

The proposals must address support for airworthiness activities and allow for Engineering Review Boards and Project Folders. Project folders must include as a minimum: all contract documentation, funding tracking, material purchase orders, email communications with SPO and MAJCOM personnel, significant notes, meeting minutes, draft documents/drawings, and final deliverables. Project folders must be updated monthly and be readily accessible by the Government. The Contractor is also required to support monthly project reviews with key Government personnel.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE:

8.1. Quality Assurance is satified by monthly status reviews at which the Contractor must provide cost, schedule, performance accounting and reporting in the form of customer defined quad-charts.

APPENDIX A

Items provided in DVD

1. KC-135 LGIP Data

2. C-130 LGIP Data

3. SAE ARP6412

4. Landing Gear Structural Analysis Drawing

APPENDIX B

Requirements for OEM Stress Analysis Spreadsheets

1. Electronic stress analysis spreadsheets will be developed from OEM stress analysis and manuals.

2. The spreadsheets shall be completed and delivered in unlocked, editable Microsoft Excel format.

3. The sheets shall include the following:

a. Part number

b. National Stock Number (when applicable)

c. Images of the most recent revision of OEM analysis

d. All charts, figures, graphs, or references used in the analysis linked within the same workbook as the digital calculator

e. All equations shall display the formula (shown in variable format)

f. Proper units shall be displayed

g. Variables shall be identified with labels (e.g. First moment of area, Lug width, Axial load, etc.).

h. Sub and superscripts shall be displayed as such

i. All geometry inputs shall be highlighted

j. All dynamic variables (e.g. Stress concentration factors, Plastic bending factors, Bending modulus, Slenderness ratios, etc.) shall update automatically based on equations

k. If values are interpolated from graphs, the digitalized graph shall be dynamically linked in the sheet and shall display trend-line equations and correlation coefficients

APPENDIX C

Material strain-life data is available for the following materials:

300M 4330V 4340 (260ksi) 4340 (180ksi) 7049 T73 7050 T74 7075 T73 7175 T74 AerMet 100 S53