Development and Transition of a Computational Materials Framework to Support Qualification of Additively Manufactured Components

E H Glaessgen; Michael Gorelik

Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20200003960

Development and Transition of a Computational Materials Framework to Support Qualification of Additively Manufactured Components

E H Glaessgen·Michael Gorelik

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

E H Glaessgen, Michael Gorelik. Development and Transition of a Computational Materials Framework to Support Qualification of Additively Manufactured Components. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20200003960

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

DOE OSTI2026

Model-based, in-situ, non-destructive qualification and certification of parts made by autonomous additive manufacturing

To address the significant productivity challenges associated with the qualification and certification (Q&C) tasks of additively manufactured (AM) parts, which have traditionally relied on rigorous post‐build inspection and testing, we propose an integrated framework that combines model‐based qualification and certification (MBQ&C) with autonomous additive manufacturing (AAM). MBQ&C employs high‐fidelity predictive models, developed within the Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) paradigm, to simulate process–structure–property–performance relationships for assessing a part’s fitness for use. Since predictive models are commonly machine learning (ML)-based or reduced-order surrogates of validated physics models, they run efficiently, enabling timely inference. In parallel, the self-driving AAM utilises ML-based adaptive, closed‐loop control strategies to avoid, mitigate, or repair defects and anomalies during fabrication, thereby increasing the likelihood of producing acceptable parts. A key feature of the combined AAM-MBQ&C framework is that predictive models explicitly incorporate defects or anomalies that persist after the build, using instance-specific data captured via in-situ sensing. This customisation enables a build‐specific assessment of fitness for use, rather than relying on nominal or generic parameters. Such individualised evaluation provides a robust basis for Q&C-related acceptance decisions relating to each build. Additionally, the rapid solution capabilities of ML or reduced-order models enable the determination of a part’s suitability for service shortly after build completion. As the framework matures, it has the potential to substantially reduce reliance on conventional point‐design approaches—such as time‐consuming post‐build computed tomography scanning and costly destructive testing. Thus, the AAM-MBQ&C framework represents a transformative, scalable strategy for quality assurance of AM components, as parts produced within a stable, validated, and certified envelope can be certified with reduced testing. Key benefits include: (1) significant gains in Q&C productivity through efficient, model-centric assessment; (2) performance-based classification of defects into critical and non-critical categories; (3) the ability to predict potential deviations in the performance of parts affected by real-time, adaptive process control interventions relative to those produced under a certified process, and (4) the enabling of virtual Q&C for service environments that are difficult, hazardous, or impractical to access or reproduce experimentally. Collectively, these capabilities strengthen the business case for AM, particularly for high‐consequence and mission‐critical applications. Finally, although this work focuses on powder-based AM, the proposed techniques could be extended to AM processes employing alternative feedstock forms.

Gunasegaram, Dayalan↗

DOE OSTI2026

Draft ASME Code Case to qualify L-PBF 316H material for Section III, Division 5 applications

This report documents the AMMT program’s development and submission of a draft ASME Code Case to qualify Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L PBF) Type 316H stainless steel for Section III, Divi-sion 5 Class A and SM high temperature nuclear applications. It summarizes the technical basis, the comprehensive high temperature mechanical test database assembled between 2023–2026, and the proposed code language and qualification framework submitted to ASME. The work was co-ordinated across multiple national laboratories and leverages prior ASME efforts to integrate additive manufacturing into the Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code. The body of the report describes the experimental database and analysis supporting the Code Case: tensile, creep, fatigue, creep fatigue, and thermal aging tests collected from multiple additive manufacturing sites, machine types, and powder lots, with material processed by a solution anneal heat treatment. The dataset — including both full size and subsized specimens and tests oriented parallel and perpendicular to build direction — shows limited tensile anisotropy, tensile properties comparable to wrought 316H, creep strength within the scatter of wrought material, but markedly reduced creep ductility above about 650 °C associated with rapid σ phase formation in L PBF microstructures. The draft Code Case itself prescribes a staged qualification model (manufacturing process qualification, component qualification, and per build witness testing), treats L PBF components as equivalent to Type 316 weld metal for design and inspection, and requires mechanical, chemical, and metallographic controls tied to ASTM/ISO 52946. Key acceptance criteria include tensile tests within a 90% prediction interval of the AMMT dataset, a creep fatigue screening test adapted from ASME Section III, Division 5, Subsection HB, HBB 2800 but with the cycle acceptance reduced to 100 for L PBF material, and double volumetric inspection of production components. The report concludes that the present data support treating L PBF 316H as analogous to conventional fusion weld metal for Division 5 design and inspection, while highlighting important caveats: the σ phase driven loss of creep ductility above ~650 °C, preliminary indications of enhanced creep fatigue sensitivity in some lots, and remaining gaps in long term aging and additional cyclic testing. Recommended next actions include completing outstanding cyclic and long duration creep/aging tests on the solution annealed condition, supporting inclusion of the 316H chemistry and heat treatment in ASTM/ISO 52946, and continuing engagement with ASME and NRC during balloting and review to enable industry adoption.

Messner, Mark C. (ORCID:0000000200404385)↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Frank Discussion on Lessons Learned From Adopting and Applying NASA-STD-6030 for Spaceflight Systems

With the advancement and adoption of Additive Manufacturing (AM) for spaceflight systems, numerous lessons have been learned during the qualification and certification of AM components. The lessons learned covered in this presentation will provide an overview of the challenges faced by NASA centers and commercial partners working to design AM hardware that complies with NASA-STD-6030 Additive Manufacturing Requirements (AMR). Topics of interest include tailoring of requirements for specific projects, documentation requirements, and addressing conservative approaches towards mechanical property development and analysis. In addition to that, this presentation aims to impress that these lessons learned will influence the future revisions of the NASA technical standard to facilitate and advance AM technology adoption on NASA projects.

Additive Manufacturing↗