Making the Case for a Model-Based Definition of Engineering Materials
Source abstract
Abstract
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.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Manufacturing Process and Optimization · Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design · Material Selection and Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (49)
Show source-provided references
1. National Defense Industrial Association (2011) Final report, Model-based engineering, NDIA M and S, Feb. 2011
2. Whittenburg M, Whittenburg R (2013) Using MIL-STD-31000a to support better buying power 2.0, contract management, October 2013, 32–43
3. Committee On Integrated Computational Engineering (2008) Integrated computational materials engineering: a transformational discipline for improved competitiveness and national security. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
4. The White House (2011) The materials genome initiative. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/materials_genome_initiative-final.pdf . Accessed 21 March 2017
5. Furrer D, Liu X, Naik R, Venkatesh V (2016) Model-based materials definitions for design and structural analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, Nashville, TN, 15–18 February 2016
6. Battelle Memorial Institute (2016) Metallic materials properties development and standardization (MMPDS), https://www.mmpds.org/ Accessed 4 March 2017
7. Wichita State University (2016) Composite materials handbook, http://www.cmh17.org/ . Accessed 24 March 2017
8. Cernatescu I, Venkatesh V, Glanovsky JL, Landry LH, Green RN, Gynther D, Furrer DU, Turner TJ (2015) Residual stress measurements implementation in model validation process as applied in the United States Air Force foundational engineering problem program on ICME of bulk residual stress in Ni Rotors. In: 56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, AIAA SciTech Forum, Kissimmee, FL, 5–9 January 2015. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2025-038710.2514/6.2025-0387 ↗
9. Olson GB (1997) Computational design of hierarchically structured materials. Science 277:1237–1242. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5330.123710.1126/science.277.5330.1237 ↗
10. Reed RC, Tao T, Warnken N (2009) Alloys-by-design: application to nickel-based single crystal superalloys. Acta Mater 57(19):5898–5913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2009.08.01810.1016/j.actamat.2009.08.018 ↗
11. Allison J, Li M, Wolverton C, Su X (2006) Virtual aluminum castings: an industrial application of ICME. JOM 58(11):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-006-0224-410.1007/s11837-006-0224-4 ↗
12. Furrer D, Chatterjee A, Shen AG, Semiatin S L, Miller J, Glavicic M, Goetz R, Barker D (2007) Development and application of microstructure and mechanical property models for titanium alloys. In: Minomi M, Akiyama S, Ikeda M, Hagiwara M, Maruyama K (eds) Ti2007 science and technology, the Japan institute of metals, pp 781–788
13. Glavicic MG, Venkatesh V (2014) Integrated computational materials engineering of titanium: current capabilities being developed under the metals affordability initiative. JOM 66(7):1310–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-014-1013-010.1007/s11837-014-1013-0 ↗
14. Reinman G, Ayer T, Davan T, Devore M, Finley S, Glanovsky J, Gray L, Hall B, Jones C, Learned A, Mesaros E, Morris R, Pinero S, Russo R, Stearns E, Teicholz M, Teslik-Welz W, Yudichak D (2012) Design for variation. Qual Eng 24(2):317–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/08982112.2012.65197310.1080/08982112.2012.651973 ↗
15. Adams P (2012) Presented at Aeromat, Charlotte, NC, June 19, 2012
16. Furrer DU (2011) Application of phase-field modeling to industrial materials and manufacturing processes. Curr Opinion Solid State Mater Sci 15(3):134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2011.03.00110.1016/j.cossms.2011.03.001 ↗
17. Sangid MD, Sehitoglu H, Maier HJ, Furrer DU, Glavicic MG, Stillinger J (2012) Role of microstructure in predicting fatigue performance. In: 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference, 23–26 April 2012, Honolulu, Hawaii10.2514/6.2012-1489 ↗
18. Gorbatov OI, Lomaev IL, Gornostyrev YN, Ruban AV, Furrer D, Venkatesh V, Novikov DL, Burlatsky SF (2016) Effect of composition on antiphase boundary energy in Ni3Al based alloys: ab initio calculations. Phys Rev B 93:22410610.1103/PhysRevB.93.224106 ↗
19. Woodward C (2011) Ab-initio molecular dynamics simulation of molten Ni-based superalloys. AFRL-RX-WP-TP-2011-4370 air force research laboratory. OH, Wright-Patterson AFB. http://dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA553357 , Accessed 15 May 2017
20. Rugg D, Furrer D, Brewitt N (2008) Textures in titanium alloys-an industrial perspective on deformation. In: Rollett A D10.1002/9780470444191.ch58 ↗
21. (ed) American ceramics society, ceramic transactions, volume 200, a collection of papers presented at the 15th international conference on texture of materials (ICOTOM 15), June 1-6, 2008, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp 521-533
22. Enright MP, McFarland J, McClung R, Wu W-T, Shankar R (2013) Probabilistic integration of material process modeling and fracture risk assessment using gaussian process models. In: 54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Boston. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-185110.2514/6.2013-1851 ↗
23. Cowles BA, Backman DG, Dutton RE (2015) Update to recommended best practice for verification and validation of ICME methods and models for aerospace applications. Integrating Mater Manuf Innov 4:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40192-014-0030-810.1186/s40192-014-0030-8 ↗
24. Panchal JH, Kalidindi SR, McDowell DL (2013) Key computational modeling issues in integrated computational materials engineering. Comput Aided Des 45:4–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2012.06.00610.1016/j.cad.2012.06.006 ↗
25. Chan KS, Moody J (2016) A Hydrogen-Induced decohesion model for treating cold dwell fatigue in Ti-Based alloys. Metall Mater Trans A 47A:2058–2072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-016-3367-010.1007/s11661-016-3367-0 ↗
26. Department of Defense (2013) Standard practice, Technical data packages. MIL-STD-31000A, 26 February 2013
27. Ball DL, James MA, Bucci R, Watton J, DeWald AT, Hill MR, Popelar CF, Bhamidipati V, McClung RC (2015) The impact of forging residual stress on fatigue in aluminum, SciTech 2015, Kissimmee, Florida, 5–9 January 201510.2514/6.2015-0386 ↗
28. Kobryn P, Tuegel E, Zweber J, Kolonay R (2017) Digital thread and twin for systems engineering: EMD to disposal. In: 55th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting 9–13 January 2017, Grapevine. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-087610.2514/6.2017-0876 ↗
29. Larsen JM, Jha SK, Szczepanski CJ, Caton MJ, John R, Rosenberger AH, Buchanan DJ, Golden PJ, Jira JR (2013) Reducing uncertainty in fatigue life limits of turbine engine alloys. Int J Fatigue 57:103–11210.1016/j.ijfatigue.2013.01.012 ↗
30. Ghosh S, Dimiduk DM (eds) (2011) Computational methods for microstructure-property relationships. Springer, Berlin10.1007/978-1-4419-0643-4 ↗
31. Kennedy MC, O’Hagan A (2001) Bayesian calibration of computer models. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol) 63(3):425–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.0029410.1111/1467-9868.00294 ↗
32. Niezgoda SR, Yabansu YC, Kalidindi SR (2011) Understanding and visualizing microstructure and microstructure variance as a stochastic process. Acta Mater 59:6387–640010.1016/j.actamat.2011.06.051 ↗
33. Niezgoda SR, Kanjarla AK, Kalidindi SR (2013) Novel microstructure quantification framework for databasing, visualization, and analysis of microstructure data. Integrating Mater Manuf Innov 2:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9772-2-310.1186/2193-9772-2-3 ↗
34. Kalidindi SR (2016) Hierarchical materials informatics. Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN: 9780124103948
35. Groeber MA, Jackson MA (2014) DREAM. 3D: a digital representation environment for the analysis of microstructure in 3D. Integrating Mater Manuf Innov 3(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9772-3-510.1186/2193-9772-3-5 ↗
36. Kral M, Spanos G (1999) Three-dimensional analysis of proeutectoid cementite precipitates. Acta Metall 47(2):711–724
37. Rumble J (2014) E-materials data. ASTM international. Standardization news, http://www.astm.org/standardization-news/perspective/ematerials-data-ma14.html . Accessed 22 March 2017
38. Cheung K, Hunter J, Drennan J (2009) Matseek: an ontology-based federated search interface for materials scientists. IEEE Intell Syst 24:47–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2009.1310.1109/MIS.2009.13 ↗
39. Austin T, Bullough C, Gagliardi D, Leal D, Loveday M (2013) Prenormative research into standard messaging formats for engineering materials data. Int J Digit Curation 8(1):5–13. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v8i1.24510.2218/ijdc.v8i1.245 ↗
40. Michel K, Meredig B (2016) Beyond bulk single crystals: a data format for all materials structure–property–processing relationships. MRS Bull 41(8):617–62310.1557/mrs.2016.166 ↗
41. Diehl M, Eisenlohr P, Zhang C, Nastola J, Shanthraj P, Roters F (2017) A flexible and efficient output file format for grain scale multiphysics simulations. Integrating Mater Manuf Innov. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-017-0084-510.1007/s40192-017-0084-5 ↗
42. Schmitz G, Prahl U, Farivar H (2017) Scenario for data exchange at the microstructure scale. Integrating Mater Manuf Innov. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-017-0092-510.1007/s40192-017-0092-5 ↗
43. MATerials Innovation Network (2017) Georgia tech institute for materials, Georgia institute of technology. https://matin.gatech.edu/ . Accessed 15 May 2017
44. Jacobsen MD, Fourman JR, Porter KM, Wirrig EA, Benedict MD, Foster BJ, Ward CH (2016) Creating an integrated collaborative environment for materials research. Integrating Mater Manuf Innov 5:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40192-016-0055-210.1186/s40192-016-0055-2 ↗
45. Carey NS, Budavári T, Daphalapurkar N, Ramesh KT (2016) Data integration for materials research. Integrating Mater Manuf Innov 5:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40192-016-0049-010.1186/s40192-016-0049-0 ↗
46. Puchala B, Tarcea G, Marquis EA, Hedstrom M, Jagadish HV, Allison JE (2016) The materials commons: a collaboration platform and information repository for the global materials community. JOM 68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-016-1998-710.1007/s11837-016-1998-7 ↗
47. Metals Affordability Consortium (2017) MAIHub. https://maihub.org/ . Accessed 24 January 2017
48. Kalidindi SR (2015) Data science and cyberinfrastructure: critical enablers for accelerated development of hierarchical materials. Int Mater Rev 60(3):150–16810.1179/1743280414Y.0000000043 ↗
49. Kalidindi SR, de Graef M (2015) Materials data science: current status and future outlook. Annu Rev Mater Res 45:171–193. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070214-02084410.1146/annurev-matsci-070214-020844 ↗