Search NASA⌕ Search
Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20260001729

Computational Materials for Qualification and Certification (CM4QC) Strategy Document: Maturation of Computational Materials Methods for Aviation-Focused Qualification and Certification of Metal Additive Manufacturing (as an Example of Process-Intensive Materials)

Edward H Glaessgen·Michael Gorelik·Corbett C Battaile·Derrick Lamm·Lyle E Levine·Harry R Millwater·Alonso Peralta-Duran·Narendran Raghavan·Anthony D Rollett·Edwin J Schwalbach
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Although considerable scientific and technological advances have been made in recent years in additive manufacturing (AM) processes, these advances have not translated into significant market penetration of AM parts within the aviation industry. It is broadly acknowledged that using traditional qualification and certification (Q&C) approaches for AM components is one of the most significant barriers to broader adoption of AM, resulting in high costs, long product development and certification timelines, and complex design iterations during the product development cycle. A new approach is urgently needed. This document lays out a vision for a new Q&C paradigm with increased use of computational materials (CM) methods aimed at decreasing the time and cost of Q&C of process-intensive material (PIM) approaches in the aviation industry, with AM as the immediate use case. This vision was developed with substantial input from industry, regulatory agencies, government research organizations, and academia.

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Edward H Glaessgen, Michael Gorelik, Corbett C Battaile, Derrick Lamm, Lyle E Levine, Harry R Millwater, Alonso Peralta-Duran, Narendran Raghavan, Anthony D Rollett, Edwin J Schwalbach. 2026-03-01. Computational Materials for Qualification and Certification (CM4QC) Strategy Document: Maturation of Computational Materials Methods for Aviation-Focused Qualification and Certification of Metal Additive Manufacturing (as an Example of Process-Intensive Materials). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20260001729

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

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↗