ASM Online Member Community

How can we get trustworthy materials data to users who need it in the most effective way possible?  At a smaller scale, what data do you (individually) need most often, and how much effort does it take for you to get trusted data?

@Zachary Birky

​

------------------------------
Zachary Birky
Intellectual Property Transaction Manager
------------------------------

Getting materials data that can be trusted is definitely a problem and limits the validity of much of the modeling and predictive work that is out there.  I think having trustworthy depositories that are publicly available is key.  These may be through trusted organizations such as ASM or other professional societies or through placed like government entities who fund work to develop this data (NSF, DOE, DOD).  Peer review of the data is also important.

------------------------------
James Hemrick
Senior Research Staff
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Knoxville TN
(865) 776-0758
------------------------------

<How can we get trustworthy materials data to users who need it in the most effective way possible?  At a smaller scale, what data do you (individually) need most often, and how much effort does it take for you to get trusted data?>

Who are the users?  Are they designers within your own organization?  Are they knowledgeable enough to interpret the industry specifications correctly?  Are they just using specifications that were developed / called out by people who are no longer with the organization, and who didn't document their work or that documentation has been lost?

Are they customers who will be using the materials and need the properties to sharpen their design?

If you are purchasing material, your supplier takes the ultimate responsibility for what is delivered and used.  So the vendor should be providing materials data.  Industry specifications are generally set so that almost all material supplied will meet the specified minimum/maximum, given typical processing.  This is determined by statistical process control based on the history of the products meeting that spec. To put an even finer point on it, one might need a property at a certain test position/orientation within a final part that isn't guaranteed by the industry specification, so the customer will have to pay to support this extra information being obtained and recorded.  If nobody in the design organization wants to pay for a system to track and retain extra certifications that allow finer control of design, then I'd recommend against doing that.

Certain manufacturers may be willing to supply material that exceeds the minimums, if you are willing to pay a premium for those qualities.  Examples: stainless steels that have L grade carbon but still meet room temperature properties for non-L grades, or alloy steels with a guaranteed tighter/better hardenability band than a generic material meeting the alloy spec, or "plain" carbon steel piping that has a Cr content that is guaranteed to be above the minimum to better resist erosion-corrosion conditions.  If everyone knows what they are doing, this can work well.  But one must protect against the purchasing agent who want to trim costs without getting agreement with all of those further back in the design and specification process.


------------------------------
Paul Tibbals
------------------------------