Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Summary
Materials Testing 2.0 represents a fundamental shift in how we calibrate material models used in engineering. It leverages modern full-field optical strain measurements together with other advanced experimental techniques such as diffraction stress analysis and thermography, and combines them with high-performance computing to enable a new paradigm in materials characterization. We are establishing a robust foundation for this new approach, determining best practices, quantifying uncertainties, and developing standards for its application.
Description
The traditional approach to calibrating material models, known as Materials Testing 1.0, is a time-consuming and costly process that requires multiple experiments to be performed on different types of testing equipment. This not only results in high capital costs for testing machines but also leads to lengthy testing campaigns, ultimately driving up the overall cost of material characterization. Furthermore, each traditional test is designed to generate a single unique stress state in the material, providing only one data point or one data curve for calibrating a model or comparing material performance. Materials Testing 2.0 (MT2.0) uses an inverse approach that extracts rich information from a single, complex experiment to provide a more effective data set for model calibrations in less time. By analyzing the experimental data in conjunction with FEA simulations, we can infer the material's properties through an iterative process of model updating and validation. Our goal is to establish a robust framework for this new technique, including methods for quantifying the quality of the outputs and uncertainties, and providing a foundation for widespread adoption by industry.
Active Work
Although we have a long history of combining plasticity modeling and a variety of mechanical tests and advanced measurement techniques, we have recently directed some effort toward realizing a more complete and robust MT2.0 framework. Our ongoing work involves a comparison between MT2.0 methods offered by commercially available software with MT1.0 results from previous NUMISHEET benchmark test data on an advanced high-strength steel used in the automotive industry. Initial comparison metrics include data coverage (maximum strains, range of stress states, uncertainties) and cost (number of tests required for model calibration) between the two methods.