Crystal Plasticity Model Calibration for Ti-7Al Alloy with a Multi-fidelity Computational Scheme

  • Pınar AcarEmail author
Technical Article


The present work addresses a Gaussian process-based multi-fidelity computational scheme to enable the crystal plasticity modeling of Ti-7Al alloy. The crystal plasticity simulations are performed by using computational techniques that lead to two different solution fidelities. The first technique involves the use of a one-point probability descriptor, orientation distribution function (ODF), which measures the volume fractions of crystals in different orientations. The ODF is posed as the low-fidelity method in the multi-fidelity scheme since it neglects the effects of the microstructural correlations and grain shapes to the macro-scale stress-strain response of the material. For the high-fidelity computational technique, crystal plasticity finite element method (CPFEM) is utilized. This is because the CPFEM resolves better in grain-level microstructural features. However, the CPFEM is a computationally expensive technique and it is not feasible to be utilized for computationally costly problems. Therefore, a multi-fidelity modeling scheme that improves the low-fidelity ODF simulation data with the high-fidelity CPFEM simulations is utilized to obtain the crystal plasticity parameters. The presented approach uses more samples from the computationally less expensive low-fidelity model and less samples from the computationally expensive high-fidelity model to build a numerical framework that satisfies both accuracy and computational time expectations. The results of the presented multi-fidelity scheme show a significant improvement on the accuracy of the crystal plasticity modeling of Ti-7Al compared to the results of the previous low-fidelity solution.


Multi-fidelity modeling Gaussian process Calibration Crystal plasticity Titanium 



The author would like to acknowledge that the experimental data used in this work was provided by Dr. Anna Trump and Prof. John Allison (Materials Science and Engineering) at the University of Michigan.


  1. 1.
    Allison J, Backman D, Christodoulou L (2006) Integrated computational materials engineering: a new paradigm for the global materials profession. J Miner Met Mater Soc 25:25–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anand L, Kothari MA (1996) Computational procedure for rate-independent crystal plasticity. J Mech Phys Solids 44:525–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asaro RJ, Needleman A (1985) Texture development and strain hardening in rate dependent polycrystals. Acta Metall 33:923–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bronkhorst CA, Kalidindi SR, Anand L (1992) Polycrystalline plasticity and the evolution of crystallographic texture in FCC metals. Philos Trans R Soc London A 341:443–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Staroselsky A, Anand L (2003) A constitutive model for hcp materials deforming by slip and twinning: application to magnesium alloy AZ31B. Int J Plast 19(10):1843–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nervo L, King A, Fitzner A, Ludwig W, Preuss M (2016) A study of deformation twinning in a titanium alloy by X-ray diffraction contrast tomography. Acta Mater 105:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Balasubramanian S (1998) Application to deformation processing of lightweight metals. Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams JC, Baggerly RG, Paton NE (2002) Deformation behavior of HCP Ti-Al alloy single crystals. Metall Mater Trans A 33:837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lutjering G, Williams J (2007) Introduction in titanium, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lienert U, Brandes MC, Bernier JV, Weiss J, Shastri SV, Mills MJ, Miller MP (2009) In-situ single-grain peak profile measurements on Ti-7 Al during tensile deformation. Mater Sci Eng A 524:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khan AS, Kazmia R, Farrokha B, Zupana M (2007) Effect of oxygen content and microstructure on the thermo-mechanical response of three Ti-6Al-4V alloys: experiments and modeling over a wide range of strain-rates and temperatures. Int J Plast 23:1105–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fitzner AG (2014) Effects of alloying elements on twinning in alpha-titanium alloys. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 261Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fitzner AG, Prakash DGL, Fonseca JQ, Thomas M, Zhang S, Kelleher J, Manuel P, Preuss M (2016) The effect of aluminum on twinning in binary alpha-titanium. Acta Mater 103:341– 351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shahba A, Ghosh S (2016) Crystal plasticity FE modeling of Ti alloys for a range of strain-rates. Part I: a unified constitutive model and flow rule. Int J Plast 87:48–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Acar P, Sundararaghavan V (2017) Uncertainty quantification of microstructural properties due to variability in measured pole figures. Acta Mater 124:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Acar P, Sundararaghavan V (2016) Utilization of a linear solver for multiscale design and optimization of microstructures in an airframe panel buckling problem. In: Proceedings of the 57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference. San Diego, CA, USA, 4–8 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sundararaghavan V, Zabaras N (2005) On the synergy between texture classification and deformation process sequence selection for the control of texture-dependent properties. Acta Mater 53:1015–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu R, Kumar A, Chen Z, Agrawal A, Sundararaghavan V, Choudhary A (2015) A predictive machine learning approach for microstructure optimization and materials design. Nat Sci Rep 5:11551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sarma GB, Dawson PR (1996) Effects of interactions among crystals on the inhomogeneous deformations of polycrystals. Acta Mater 44:1937–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raabe D, Roters F (2004) Using texture components in crystal plasticity finite element simulations. Int J Plast 20:339– 361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matthies S, Wenk H -R, Vinel GW (1988) Some basic concepts of texture analysis and comparison of three methods to calculate orientation distributions from pole figures. J Appl Cryst 21:285–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dawson PR, Marin EB (1997) Computational mechanics for metal deformation processes using polycrystal plasticity. Adv Appl Mech 34:77–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zheng QS, Zou WN (2001) Orientation distribution functions for microstructures of heterogeneous materials (I)—Directional distribution functions and irreducible tensors. Appl Math Mech 22:865–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pospiech J, Lucke K, Sztwiertnia K (1993) Orientation distribution and orientation correlation functions for description of microstructures. Acta Metall Mater 41:305–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taylor G (1938) Plastic strain in metals. J Instit Metals 62:307–324Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kocks UF, Tome CN, Wenk HR (2000) Texture and anisotropy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Acar P, Ramazani A, Sundararaghavan V (2017) Crystal plasticity modeling and experimental validation with an orientation distribution function for Ti-7Al alloy. Metals 7(11):459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sha W, Malinov S (2009) Titanium alloys: modelling of microstructure, properties and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Acar P, Sundararaghavan V (2017) Uncertainty quantification of microstructural properties due to experimental variations. AIAA J 55(8):2824–2832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Acar P, Sundararaghavan V (2016) Linear solution scheme for microstructure design with process constraints. AIAA J 54(12):4022–4031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Forrester AI (2010) Black-box calibration for complex-system simulation. Philos Trans R Soc London A: Math Phys Eng Sci 368(1924):3567–3579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Huang D, Allen T, Notz W, Miller R (2006) Sequential kriging optimization using multiple-fidelity evaluations. Struct Multidiscip Optim 32(5):369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Le Gratiet L (2013) Bayesian analysis of hierarchical multifidelity codes. SIAM/ASA J Uncert Quantif 1 (1):244–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goh J, Bingham D, Holloway JP, Grosskopf MJ, Kuranz CC, Rutter E (2013) Prediction and computer model calibration using outputs from multifidelity simulators. Technometrics 55(4):501–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peherstorfer B, Willcox K, Gunzburger M (2016) Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization. ACDL Technical Report TR16-1, 1–57Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Castro JPJ, Gray GA, Hough PD, Giunta AA (2005) Developing a computationally efficient dynamic multilevel hybrid optimization scheme using multifidelity model interactions, Technical report, SAND2005-7498 Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NMGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Keane AJ (2012) Cokriging for robust design optimization. AIAA J 50(11):2351–2364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sharma A, Gogu C, Martinez OA, Sankar BV, Haftka RT (2008) Multi-fidelity design of an integrated thermal protection system for spacecraft reentry. In: 49th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference. Schauroburg, Illinois, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Venkataraman S (2006) Reliability optimization using probabilistic sufficiency factor and correction response surface. Eng Optim 38(6):671–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Venkataraman S, Haftka R, Johnson T (1998) Design of shell structures for buckling using correction response surface approximations. In: 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization. St. Louis, MOGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Goldfeld Y, Vervenne K, Arbocz J, Van Keulen F (2005) Multi-fidelity optimization of laminated conical shells for buckling. Struct Multidiscip Optim 30(2):128–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fernandez-Godino MG, Park C, Kim N-H, Haftka RT (2016) Review of multi-fidelity models. arXiv:
  43. 43.
    Kopp R, Gardea F, Glaz B, Smith EC (2017) Multi-fidelity modeling of interfacial micromechanics for off-aligned polymer/carbon nanotube nanocomposites. In: 58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference. Grapevine, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kuya Y, Takeda K, Zhang X, Forrester AJJ (2011) Multifidelity surrogate modeling of experimental and computational aerodynamic data sets. AIAA J 49(2):289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Forrester AJJ, Sobester A, Keane AJ (2007) Multifidelity optimization via surrogate modeling. Proc R Soc A 463(2088):3251–3269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Perdikaris P, Raissi M, Damianou A, Lawrence ND, Karniadakis GE (2017) Nonlinear information fusion algorithms for data-efficient multi-fidelity modeling. Proc R Soc A 473(2198):20160751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Viana FAC, Simpson TW, Balabanov V, Toropov V (2014) Metamodeling in multidisciplinary design optimization: how far have we really come? AIAA J 52(4):670–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wilson A, Adams R (2013) Gaussian process kernels for pattern discovery and extrapolation. Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning PMLR 28(3):1067–1075Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pagan DC, Bernier JV, Dale D, Ko JYP, Turner TJ, Blank B, Shade PA (2018) Measuring Ti-7Al slip system strengths at elevated temperature using high-energy x-ray diffraction. Scr Mater 142:96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pagan DC, Shade PA, Barton NR, Park J -S, Kenesei P, Menasche DB, Bernier JV (2017) Modeling slip system strength evolution in Ti-7Al informed by in-situ grain stress measurements. Acta Mater 128:406–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical EngineeringVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations