Making the Case for a Model-Based Definition of Engineering Materials

For over 100 years, designers of aerospace components have used simple requirement-based material and process specifications. The associated standards, product control documents, and testing data provided a certifiable material definition, so as to minimize risk and simplify procurement of materials during the design, manufacture, and operation of engineered systems, such as aerospace platforms. These material definition tools have been assembled to ensure components meet design definitions and design intent. They must ensure the material used meets “equivalency” to that used in the design process. Although remarkably effective, such traditional materials definitions are increasingly becoming the limiting challenge for materials, design, and manufacturing engineers supporting modern, model-based engineering. Demands for cost-effective, higher performance aerospace systems are driving new approaches for multi-disciplinary design optimization methods that are not easily supportable via traditional representations of materials information. Furthermore, property design values having the definitions based on statistical distributions from testing results can leave substantial margin or material capability underutilized, depending on component complexity and the application. Those historical statistical approaches based on macroscopic testing inhibit innovative approaches for enhancing materials definitions for greater performance in design. This can include location-specific properties, hybrid materials, and additively manufactured components. Development and adoption of digital and model-based means of representing engineering materials, within a design environment, is essential to span the widening gap between materials engineering and design. We believe that the traditional approach to defining materials by chemistry ranges, manufacturing process ranges, and static mechanical property minima will migrate to model-based material definitions (MBMDs), due to the many benefits that result from this new capability. This paper reviews aspects of the challenges and opportunities of model-based engineering and model-based definitions.

[1]  Michael P. Enright,et al.  Probabilistic Integration of Material Process Modeling and Fracture Risk Assessment Using Gaussian Process Models , 2013 .

[2]  Chen Zhang,et al.  A Flexible and Efficient Output File Format for Grain-Scale Multiphysics Simulations , 2017, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.

[3]  Jitesh H. Panchal,et al.  Key computational modeling issues in Integrated Computational Materials Engineering , 2013, Comput. Aided Des..

[4]  M. Groeber,et al.  DREAM.3D: A Digital Representation Environment for the Analysis of Microstructure in 3D , 2014, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.

[5]  Georg J. Schmitz,et al.  Scenario for Data Exchange at the Microstructure Scale , 2017, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.

[6]  Jeffrey V. Zweber,et al.  Digital Thread and Twin for Systems Engineering: Requirements to Design , 2017 .

[7]  R. Reed,et al.  Alloys-By-Design: Application to nickel-based single crystal superalloys , 2009 .

[8]  Ethan Stearns,et al.  Design for Variation , 2012 .

[9]  R. Craig McClung,et al.  The Impact of Forging Residual Stress on Fatigue in Aluminum , 2015 .

[10]  Surya R. Kalidindi,et al.  Data science and cyberinfrastructure: critical enablers for accelerated development of hierarchical materials , 2015 .

[11]  George Spanos,et al.  Three-dimensional analysis of proeutectoid cementite precipitates , 1999 .

[12]  David Ulrich Furrer,et al.  Role of Microstructure in Predicting Fatigue Performance , 2012 .

[13]  Mei Li,et al.  Virtual aluminum castings: An industrial application of ICME , 2006 .

[14]  Somnath Ghosh,et al.  Computational methods for microstructure-property relationships , 2011 .

[15]  Jeffrey V. Zweber,et al.  Digital Thread and Twin for Systems Engineering: Design to Retirement , 2017 .

[16]  H. V. Jagadish,et al.  The Materials Commons: A Collaboration Platform and Information Repository for the Global Materials Community , 2016 .

[17]  David Ulrich Furrer,et al.  Textures in Titanium Alloys ‐ An Industrial Perspective on Deformation, Transformation and Properties , 2008 .

[18]  James R. Fourman,et al.  Creating an integrated collaborative environment for materials research , 2016, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.

[19]  Bradford A Cowles,et al.  Update to recommended best practice for verification and validation of ICME methods and models for aerospace applications , 2015, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.

[20]  Surya R. Kalidindi,et al.  Materials Data Science: Current Status and Future Outlook , 2015 .

[21]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Bayesian calibration of computer models , 2001 .

[22]  G. B. Olson,et al.  Computational Design of Hierarchically Structured Materials , 1997 .

[23]  M. G. Glavicic,et al.  Integrated Computational Materials Engineering of Titanium: Current Capabilities Being Developed Under the Metals Affordability Initiative , 2014, JOM.

[24]  Yu. N. Gornostyrev,et al.  Effect of composition on antiphase boundary energy in Ni 3 Al based alloys: Ab initio calculations , 2016 .

[25]  Vasisht Venkatesh,et al.  Residual Stress Measurements for Model Validation As Applied in the United States Air Force Foundational Engineering Problem Program on ICME of Bulk Residual Stress in Ni Rotors , 2015 .

[26]  Jane Hunter,et al.  Federated Search Interface for Materials Scientists , 2009 .

[27]  S. Kalidindi,et al.  Novel microstructure quantification framework for databasing, visualization, and analysis of microstructure data , 2013, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.

[28]  Kwai S. Chan,et al.  A Hydrogen-Induced Decohesion Model for Treating Cold Dwell Fatigue in Titanium-Based Alloys , 2016, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A.

[29]  Tamás Budavári,et al.  Data integration for materials research , 2016, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.

[30]  Yuksel C. Yabansu,et al.  Understanding and visualizing microstructure and microstructure variance as a stochastic process , 2011 .

[31]  David Leal,et al.  Prenormative Research into Standard Messaging Formats for Engineering Materials Data , 2013, Int. J. Digit. Curation.

[32]  A. D. Rollett Materials processing and texture : a collection of papers presented at the 15th International Conference on Textures of Materials (ICOTOM 15), June 1-6, 2008, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania , 2009 .

[33]  David Ulrich Furrer,et al.  Application of phase-field modeling to industrial materials and manufacturing processes , 2011 .

[34]  Bryce Meredig,et al.  Beyond bulk single crystals: A data format for all materials structure–property–processing relationships , 2016 .

[35]  Patrick J. Golden,et al.  Reducing Uncertainty in Fatigue Life Limits of Turbine Engine Alloys (Preprint) , 2012 .