Examples of QuesTek Innovations` Application of ICME to

In partnership with
Examples of QuesTek Innovations’ Application
of ICME to Materials Design, Development, and
Rapid Qualification
Jason T. Sebastian and Gregory B. Olson
QuesTek Innovations LLC, Evanston, IL 60201, USA
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
QuesTek background
QuesTek's ICME approach to materials design
Ferrium® M54™
Ferrium® S53®
Ferrium® C61™ & C64™
Castable titanium
High-strength, corrosion-resistance aluminum
2
Abstract
We present a broad overview of QuesTek’s Integrated
Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) approach to the
design, development, and rapid qualification of advanced aerospace
materials (aerospace structural steels, advanced gear steels,
castable titanium alloys, and high-performance aluminum alloys).
QuesTek’s approach to integrated design and accelerated
qualification is grounded in a system of accurate CALPHAD-based
fundamental genomic databases that support predictive sciencebased parametric design of composition and processing.
QuesTek’s approach exploits the inherent predictability of designed
systems in linking microstructural evolution to component-level
processing.
3
Background on QuesTek
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Founded in 1997
Based in Evanston, IL
14 employees
Global leader in integrated computational materials engineering (ICME)
•
Aligned with President Obama’s 2011 Materials Genome Initiative
•
In regular conversation with the Office of Science and Technology
Our Materials by Design® technology and expertise applies Integrated Computational Materials Engineering
(ICME) tools and methods to design new alloys 50% faster and at 70% less cost than traditional empirical
methods
•
Creates IP and licenses it to alloy producers, processors or OEMs
•
30+ patents awarded or pending worldwide
•
Four computationally-designed, commercially-available steels licensed to Carpenter under evaluation
from Army, Navy, Air Force and private industry: Ferrium M54, S53, C61 and C64
Leading recipient of SBIR awards in Illinois, creating key new materials for DoD
•
$17.7 Million in SBIR funding since 2001, with $21.6 Million reported commercialization value and
growing
The National Academy of Science’s 2012 “Application of Lightweighting Technology to Military Aircraft,
Vessels and Vehicles” highlights QuesTek’s new high strength steels and computational design methods
Designing 10+ new Fe, Al, Cu, Ni, Co, Nb, Ti, Mo and W based alloys for government and industry
4
QuesTek’s ICME approach to
materials design
5
QuesTek’s Integrated Computational Materials Engineering approach
6
Computational materials design overview:
Systems design charts
Design material as a system to meet customer-defined performance goals
e.g. this “Design Chart” for Ferrium C64 was developed under a contract resulting from U.S. Navy
Solicitation Topic #N05-T006.
7
Computational materials design overview:
Computational modeling and experimental tools
8
Commercializing new alloys through licensees
9
Ferrium M54
10
Ferrium M54: Superior properties, lower risk, lower cost
•
•
VIM / VAR steel, commercially available
Numerous benefits of using M54 vs. AerMet®100:
 Lower procurement cost
 Greater resistance to Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC)
 Exceeds or meets all S-basis procurement minima of
AerMet100
 Superior low and high cycle fatigue life
 More robust thermal processing
 Lower machining costs
•
•
•
Upgrade from 4340, 300M, Maraging 250/300, etc.
AMS 6516; MMPDS A & B Basis submitted in Fall 2013
Significant US-DoD support for M54
11
M54: improved minimum properties vs. other VIM/VAR steels
4340
(AMS 6414)
300M
(AMS 6419)
AerMet100
(AMS 6532)
Ferrium M54
(AMS 6516)
S-basis Minimum Ultimate
Tensile Strength (ksi)
260
280
280
285
S-basis Minimum 0.2% Yield
Strength (ksi)
217
230
235
240
Minimum KIC Fracture
Toughness (ksi-√in)
~45*
~40*
100
100
Reported Minimum
KISCC (ksi-√in)
~10
~10
~22
~88
Corrosion Resistance
Poor
Poor
Marginal
Marginal
* No procurement minimum
M54 has higher S-basis minimums, better SCC resistance,
and a lower raw material cost than AerMet 100
12
QuesTek modeling example:
Ferrium M54 solidification / homogenization simulations
M54 homogenization at T 1, SDAS1
M54 solidification simulation
M54 homogenization at T 2, SDAS1
13
Ferrium M54 composition variation and uncertainty analysis
VHN (left), Ms (right)
14
Achieving strength: Advanced characterization techniques allow for
confirmation of Ferrium M54’s designed nanostructure
Comparison of atom-probe tomography reconstruction (left) and transmission electron
microscopy images (right) of nanoscale M2C strengthening carbides in Ferrium M54
15
Gleeble testing for forgability analysis (under N093-175 SBIR)
16
Case Study: Ferrium M54 for T-45 hookshanks
Navy Contract # N68335-10-C-0174
•
•
•
•
•
Incumbent alloy (Hy-Tuf) was underperforming in service
New Ferrium M54 selected for evaluation under SBIR Ph II
Three prototypes nearing completion, rig testing scheduled for
late July 2013
Project Recipient of NAWCAD Commander’s Award (November
2012)
Has been approved in FY14 budget to produce replacements
using M54
17
Ferrium S53
18
Ferrium S53 - Summary
•
•
•
•
•
Ultra High-Strength, Corrosion Resistant Steel
Replace 4340/300M/Maraging Series where similar strength is needed but
components are corroding; eliminate Cad usage
Replace 440C where greater toughness / ductility is required
Corrosion rate of 0.33 mpy, vs. 0.26 for 15-5 PH and 7.0 for 300M
In landing gear flight service today without cadmium plating
Typical Alloy
YS (ksi)
Properties
UTS
(ksi)
El (%) RA %
Fracture
Toughness
(ksi-in)
Corrosion
Resistance
300M
245
288
9
31
65
Poor
4340
222
276
11
35
50
Poor
Maraging 250
250
265
12
55
92
Poor
440C
275
285
2
10
15
Good
Ferrium S53
225
288
15
57
65
Good
19
Successful 18-Month Duration S53 Landing Gear Field Service
Evaluation Completed
 No cadmium, only prime-and-paint, aircraft based at NASA's Johnson Space
Center (Gulf Coast).
 S53 (Cad free; prime and paint only) performed as well or better vs. 4340
(Cad-plated, prime and painted).
 Continue to evaluate performance, ongoing service evaluation.
Documented results very positive,
subjected to 307 sorties, 541
landings, 44 total tire changes –
No defects or rust found.
20
Accelerated Insertion of Materials (AIM)
Application Example: Ferrium S53
Customer Requirement: AMS and MMPDS;
280 ksi UTS A-basis minimum
Initial Data Development
Modified Data Development
Heat Treatment Optimized for 1 Melt
Applied Heat Treatment to 3 Melts
Predicted Minimum ~277 ksi UTS
Heat Treatment Optimized for 3 Melts
Strength-Toughness Tradeoff
Predicted Minimum = 280 ksi UTS
Modified
Heat
Treatment
21
Accelerated Insertion of Materials (AIM)
Application Example: Ferrium S53
Predicted A-basis minimum = 280 ksi UTS
•
•
•
A-basis minimum: 280 ksi UTS
AIM methodology has demonstrated reliable predictions for design minimums
Allows designers to apply design models to estimate property variation prior to full design
allowable development
Reduces costs and risks of material design and development
22
Ferrium S53 and M54
23
Ferrium C61 & C64
24
Ferrium C61 & C64 High Performance Carburizing Steels
Upgrade from 9310 or Pyrowear 53
C61 (AMS 6517): 60-62 HRC case, high-strength & high-toughness core
C64 (AMS 6509): 62-64 HRC case, high-strength core
 For gears, shafts, integrally-geared shafts, pins, ball screws, etc.
 Designed for vacuum carburization
 High tempering temperature →greater temperature resistance
 Greater corrosion resistance than incumbent alloys
Commercially Available
25
C61 and C64 - Designed for vacuum carburization to reduce
manufacturing costs
9310 processing from: “Effect of Shot Peening on Surface Fatigue Life of Carburized and Hardened AISI 9310 Spur Gears”, The Shot Peener, Fall 2002
•
•
•
Higher temperatures, shorter process times for Ferrium steels
Austenitizing occurs during carburization of Ferrium steels
Eliminate 3 thermal steps and associated plating/stripping
26
Validate critical design factors (core)
• Validate core nano-scale carbide dispersion:
Local Electron Atom Probe analysis
– M2C nanoscale strengthening carbides
65 x 65 x 35 nm3 dimensions
C surfaces
Cr surfaces
27
Ferrium C64 – design for avoidance of topologically closedpacked (TCP) phase stability
28
Castable titanium
29
QuesTek titanium alloy highlights
• Castable titanium
 Near-net-shape processing
 Three new QuesTek alloys (QT-Ti-1A, QT-Ti-2A, QT-Ti-2B)
• Better strength-ductility than cast Ti-6-4

A higher-performance replacement for existing Ti-6-4 castings
• Similar strength-ductility to wrought Ti-6-4
 Castable (lower cost) replacement for existing Ti-6-4 forgings
• Lower cost
 Reduced vanadium (relative to Ti-6-4)
 Tolerance to oxygen
 Can incorporate Ti-6-4 scrap into melting stock
30
Titanium system design chart
PROCESSING
Cooling rate
Heat treatment (super-solvus)
HIP (sub-solvus)
STRUCTURE
PROPERTIES
α/β substructure
• Interlocking
basketweave
• Retained β
Strength
Grain features
• Minimize α film
• Avoid equiaxed α
Ductility/
Toughness
Cast
Grain size
Raw Material
Porosity
31
Key design feature vs. Ti-64: refined, interlocking α/β
microstructure
QT-Ti-1A
Interlocking,
finer α laths
QT-Ti-6-4
Both alloys after
vacuum heat
treatment and
gas quench
(~1-2 °C/sec.)
Parallel α
laths
Comparison
microstructures are
shown at equivalent
magnifications
32
Strength – Elongation Comparison
QuesTek’s cast alloy has higher strength and ductility than cast Ti-6-4
33
From buttons to wedges to ingots to components … in three years
34
High-strength, corrosionresistance aluminum
35
QuesTek’s high-strength, corrosion-resistant aluminum alloys
• ICME-based
modeling and
design has
considered a
number of
important factors,
including
 Solidification
 Homogenization
 Precipitation
kinetics
 Strength
 Stress corrosion
cracking
 Quench sensitivity
36
QuesTek envisions working with entities that are interested in
advanced materials on a number of potential projects including:
•
•
•
•
Process modeling for optimized properties
Compositional adjustment of existing materials for improved
strength / toughness / fatigue performance / corrosion resistance
Design and development of new / innovative materials
Purchasing / licensing / manufacturing of QuesTek’s proprietary
high-performance alloys
Jason Sebastian, Ph.D.
Manager of Technology and Product Development
QuesTek Innovations LLC
Evanston, IL USA
847.425.8227, [email protected]
www.questek.com
37
Acknowledgements
QuesTek acknowledges support under US Navy contracts
N68335-07-C-0302,
N68335-08-C-0288,
N68335-11-C-0369,
N00014-05-M-0250, N68335-11-C-0079, and N68335-06-C-0339;
US Army contracts W15QKN-09-C-0026 and W15QKN-09-C0144; and Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) / US Navy
contracts N00014-09-M-0400 and N00014-11-C-0080.
38