Estimate the relative qualification burden of an aerospace or space additive-manufactured part before you commit to a full evidence program. Select five inputs below. The tool returns a directional Low / Medium / High burden and a starter evidence checklist.
Directional planning aid only. It is not an FAA, NASA, military or OEM approval decision.
How the score works
The tool scores five drivers that tend to expand the evidence burden: criticality, novelty of the alloy/data package, novelty of the process configuration, difficulty of inspection and certification intensity of the application. Low novelty and low consequence produce a lower score; stacked novelty and criticality push the program toward High.
| Score | Interpretation | Planning implication |
|---|---|---|
| 0–4: Low | Bounded evidence burden | Focus on traceability, process control, acceptance criteria and targeted verification. |
| 5–9: Medium | Structured qualification campaign | Plan dedicated material/process data, NDT substantiation, configuration control and component testing. |
| 10–18: High | Qualification is a major program workstream | Engage approval stakeholders early; build a formal evidence architecture and change/equivalence strategy. |
Evidence checklist
- Defined and traceable feedstock specification
- Qualified machine/process parameter envelope
- Heat treatment / HIP / machining / surface-finish controls
- Material property and variability dataset appropriate to failure modes
- Defect characterization and defect-tolerance linkage where relevant
- NDT/CT capability and acceptance limits
- Machine and supplier equivalence strategy
- Component-level verification / substantiation tests
- Production acceptance plan
- Configuration and change-control rules
Why this is directional—not a certification calculator
No generic calculator can determine whether a part is qualified or certified. The actual basis depends on the component, failure consequence, design organization, authority, program, existing data and manufacturing configuration. This tool is intended for early program screening: it helps teams identify where evidence work is likely to accumulate before schedule and budget are committed.
Method basis
The framework is informed by the 2026 NASA/FAA/NIST CM4QC strategy and NIST’s broader work on AM material, process and part qualification. CM4QC’s central direction is to reduce qualification time and cost by maturing computational-materials approaches while preserving the evidence rigor required for aviation safety.