NASA and FAA Propose Computer Simulations to Speed Up Metal 3D Printed Aviation Parts Certification

A New Path Forward for Aerospace Additive Manufacturing

NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have published a landmark strategy document proposing computer simulations as a tool to dramatically cut the time and cost of certifying metal 3D printed aviation components. The 195-page report, developed over five years by a steering group known as CM4QC, sets out a detailed roadmap for weaving computational modeling into the qualification and certification process for metal 3D printed parts in commercial and defense aviation.

Why Certification Remains a Bottleneck

Despite years of investment and genuine technical progress, metal additive manufacturing has yet to make a significant dent in certified aviation hardware. The main obstacle is not the printing itself — it is what comes after. Under current rules, every new 3D printed metal part must be validated through exhaustive physical testing, and each change in alloy, printer model, or part geometry can trigger a fresh round of testing.

Certification in aviation was designed around conventional manufacturing, where materials behave predictably and uniformly. Metal 3D printing does not work that way. Because a laser melts and fuses thousands of layers of metal powder, the thermal history varies across the part, producing a microstructure that can differ from one location to the next. Capturing and proving the safety of that variability through physical testing alone is slow, expensive, and does not scale well.

The Simulation Solution

The report proposes using validated computer simulations to trace the physics from the laser beam all the way to the finished component's mechanical performance — modeling how the microstructure forms, where internal stresses develop, and how the part is likely to behave under fatigue loading in service.

The concept is not entirely foreign to certification. Structural analysis software has been used in aircraft certification for decades. The goal here is to extend that same logic down to the materials level, where the complexity is considerably greater.

Simulation Maturity Framework

To make simulation results reliable enough for regulatory use, the report introduces a "Simulation Maturity Level" framework — a structured method for engineers and regulators to assess how much confidence to place in any given model. This covers everything from code verification and experimental validation to uncertainty quantification.

Some simulation tools are already considered mature enough for industrial use, particularly those for predicting residual stress and thermodynamic behavior. CALPHAD, a computational method for modelling alloy chemistry, is one such example. Others, especially those predicting fatigue life from first principles, still need significant development.

Who's Behind the Initiative

The CM4QC steering group brings together experts from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, GE Aerospace, Honeywell, RTX, Carnegie Mellon University, and several national laboratories. This represents the who's who of aerospace manufacturing and signals serious industry commitment to the approach.

Industry Momentum

The push comes at a time when the economics of certification are becoming untenable. Generating the allowables data required to certify a single new material and process combination currently costs more than $1 million and takes upward of 18 months — and that figure resets with each change in alloy, machine, or geometry.

At the 2025 AMUG Conference, Garrett Clyma from Flow Science demonstrated how melt pool simulation predicts defect formation in metal AM builds before printing begins. Using FLOW-3D AM, his team simulated a range of laser beam profiles applied to titanium alloy builds, with results matching physical experiments and in-situ X-ray data to within 10%.

Honeywell, a named contributor to the CM4QC steering group, is also leading Project STRATA — a £14.1 million UK government-backed initiative combining AI and physics-based simulation to develop and qualify 3D printed aerospace components.

What This Means for the Industry

If the roadmap is followed, the benefits extend well beyond additive manufacturing. The framework is designed to apply to any manufacturing process where the complexity of production makes traditional test-heavy certification impractical, including friction stir welding and powder metallurgy.

Flight certification by simulation alone is still some way off. But the industry now has a concrete, detailed plan for getting there — and the financial stakes could not be higher.