The mafic to ultramafic igneous provinces that these deposits are formed in were likely intruded into continental crust , which may have contained granites or gneisses. The shapes of these intrusions are described as tabular or funnel-shaped. The tabular intrusions were placed in the form of sills with the layering of these intrusions being parallel. The funnel-shaped intrusions are seen to be dipping towards the center of the intrusion. This gives the layers in this intrusion a syncline formation.
Chromite can be seen in stratiform deposits as multiple layers which consist of chromitite. An indication of water in the magma is determined by the presence of brown mica. Podiform deposits are seen to occur within the ophiolite sequences. The stratigraphy of the ophiolite sequence is deep-ocean sediments, pillow lavas , sheeted dykes , gabbros and ultramafic tectonites.
These deposits are found in ultramafic rocks, most notably in tectonites. It can be seen that the abundance of podiform deposits increase towards the top of the tectonites. Podiform deposits are irregular in shape. This deposit shows foliation that is parallel to the foliation of the host rock. Podiform deposits are described as discordant, subconcordant and concordant.
Chromite in podiform deposits form as anhedral grains. Other minerals that are seen in podiform deposits are olivine , orthopyroxene , clinopyroxene , pargasite , Na-mica , albite , and jadeite.
Chromite ore can be mined to produce chromite concentrate. It can also be crushed and processed. Chromite concentrate, when combined with a reductant such as coal or coke and a high temperature furnace can produce ferrochrome. This ferroalloy, as well as chromite concentrate can introduce various health effects. Chromite ore is found in underground conditions. Therefore, when exposed to aboveground conditions, various effects will occur. Some of these effects include weathering and oxidation. The element chromium is most abundant in chromite in the form of trivalent Cr-III.
This mostly has to do with the moistness of the milling process as well as the atmosphere in which the milling is taking place. A wet environment and a non-oxygenated atmosphere are ideal conditions to produce less Cr-VI, while the opposite is known to create more Cr-VI. Production of ferrochrome is observed to emit pollutants into the air such as nitrogen oxides , carbon oxides and sulfur oxides , as well as dust particulates with a high concentration of heavy metals such as chromium , zinc , lead , nickel and cadmium.
As with chromite ore, ferrochrome is milled and therefore produces Cr-VI. Cr-VI is therefore introduced into the dust when the ferrochrome is produced. This introduces health risks such as inhalation potential and leaching of toxins into the environment. Chromite can be used as a refractory material, because it has a high heat stability. Chromium is used as a pigment for glass, glazes, and paint, and as an oxidizing agent for tanning leather. Porcelain tiles are often produced with many different colours and pigmentations.
The usual contributor to colour in fast-fired porcelain tiles are black Fe,Cr 2 O 3 pigment, which is fairly expensive and is synthetic. Natural chromite allows for an inexpensive and inorganic pigmentation alternative to the expensive Fe,Cr 2 O 3 and allows for the microstructure and mechanical properties of the tiles to not be substantially altered or modified when introduced.
Chromium, which is mostly composed of chromite, is a main constituent in the manufacturing of stainless steel. Chromium allows for the stainless steel to be hardened and toughened.
- IN ADDITION TO READING ONLINE, THIS TITLE IS AVAILABLE IN THESE FORMATS:;
- mining equipment for chrome ore in bermuda is;
- Inorganic vs. Organic.
- History and Hope in the Heart of Dixie: Scholarship, Activism, and Wayne Flynt in the Modern South;
- Account Options?
- The Limits of Europeanization: Reform Capacity and Policy Conflict in Greece!
It also allows for corrosion resistance at high temperatures. Chromite ore production has been on a steady incline, which causes a rise in demand for the stainless steel markets. Chromite, when alloyed with iron and nickel creates an alloy called nichrome. Due to the high heat resistance of nichrome, it is mainly used for heating units. Nichrome alloys also have very good mechanical properties which allow for good oxidation and corrosion properties.
Chromite Chromite is a mineral that is an iron chromium oxide. For the chromium III anion and its salts, see Chromite compound. Chromite sample under a petrographic microscope in plain polarized light PPL. Chromite grains with white calcite grains. Green oxide of chromium from Baltimore , Maryland. Anthony, John W. Chromite PDF. Handbook of Mineralogy. Mineralogical Society of America. Retrieved 13 April Klein, Corneis; Hurlbut, Cornelius S.
Manual of Mineralogy 20th ed.
An Introduction to Ceramic Engineering Design (#G) - PDF Free Download
Webmineral data. Hudson Institute of Mineralogy. May Two other areas related to materials became of primary concern to chemical engineers. The first was corrosion, undoubtedly because of its role in equipment failures during the growth of the chemical process industry before World War II. Instruction in corrosion was typically covered in a course on both corrosion and electrochemical processes, perhaps in a course concerned with chemical plant design, or in one related to metallurgy.
By building on the electrochemistry content of physical chemistry, the treatment of corrosion could be made relatively quantitative. The second materials area developed in the chemical engineering curriculum could be identified by the title of a text published in ; namely, Industrial Chemistry of Colloidal and Amorphous Materials. At first, this type of course covered such natural materials as leather, rubber, paper, and textiles. Later, the development of the synthetic organic chemical industry led to the production of the more complex molecules, such as polymers.
However, while polymers have been growing in industry, chemical engineering departments have decreased or eliminated their courses in industrial chemistry where coverage of polymeric materials might occur. A widely read document relating to accreditation of chemical engineering curricula states that instruction in materials from the point of view of the physics and chemistry of the solid state is desirable.
The opportunity for specialization at the graduate level has permitted many students and faculty in chemical engineering departments to concentrate in the materials field. Those schools that built materials research laboratories in recent years have usually attracted one or two collaborators from the chemical engineering department, particularly in the area of polymeric materials.
Polymerization kinetics and other problems related to polymer synthesis and manufacture are also attractive fields of research in chemical engineering. Polymer processing and catalytic materials have been of major interest to chemical engineers, but most of the important developments here have occurred in industry rather than at the universities. Recently, the relationship between catalytic activity and crystal structure of the catalyst has been demonstrated for some systems, and research along these lines is enjoying increased attention. Similarly, porous solid adsorbents that have high selectivity for certain materials owing to their surface structure are being developed.
Another new material being studied in some chemical engineering laboratories is the porous film used in reverse osmosis. Materials handling is being investigated by some chemical engineers in the collection of particulate solids and the separation of solids by various means. Problems in corrosion are also under study at a few locations. Where graduate-student and faculty interest in materials exist, one or two graduate courses related to materials are frequently offered by the chemical engineering department.
Some Comparisons of Materials-Related Departments : There is rather wide agreement that physics departments have played an important role in the development of materials science, while chemistry departments appear to have been less directly involved. Similarly electrical engineering is generally held to have been much closer to the recent advances in materials than mechanical engineering has been.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to describe, quantitatively, the various materials activities in the traditional disciplinary units. Obviously, a part solid-state physics of the activity of a physics department is likewise part of MSE; the same can be said for polymer programs in chemical engineering or chemistry departments.
Through a questionnaire, an attempt has been made to obtain comparable data on the extent of materials activities in all the materials-related departments. A number of such departments were asked for their own evaluation of their involvement in materials science and engineering in answer to the following two questions:. What percentage of your students would qualify, in your opinion, to be considered as materials scientists or materials engineers?
Extent to which courses offered and taken might especially qualify a student for research in the field of materials. Extent to which the first job where known is in materials education or research. The resulting data plotted in Figure 7. The findings for chemistry are surprising, and may reflect some misunderstanding of the terms used in the questionnaire. The significant magnitude of the latter is shown in Figure 7. The figures from the COSMAT questionnaires have provided the most detailed picture of this materials research funding.
The findings from the different sources are reasonably self-consistent with the exception of the discrepancies between columns a and d. These discrepancies appear to arise from the fact that the COSMAT data include support from university, state, and industrial sources, and that slightly different definitions were used by the ICM. In addition, to obtain the total federally funded materials research at universities, we include the work supported in the science and engineering departments at several dozens of the largest advanced degree-granting institutions in the country, which have neither a materials center nor a materials department.
In the following section, the research being conducted at the universities within the scope of materials science and engineering is discussed under the. Research in materials research centers interdisciplinary materials research laboratories. It has been rightly claimed that formation of the materials research centers constituted a major landmark in experimentation with federal support of university research. Correspondingly, an evaluation of the experiment in terms of research administration, of the nature and quality of the research programs, and the interdisciplinary interaction developed, has significance beyond the materials field.
Currently, there are 28 universities in the U. These centers include four limited in scope to one class of materials, e. A simple classification of the centers can be made on the basis of their source of support as given in Table 7. Note that some universities appear in more than one place in the subsequent tabulations.
The COSMAT questionnaires provided a description of the activities of these centers, together with the principal related activities in materials research. All these centers provided data, though that for one were incomplete. The findings presented here also include opinions regarding centers from a sample of senior materials research administrators in industry, government, and academia. From analysis of the data in these tables, a useful classification of the centers on the basis of their principal distinguishing characteristics is the.
A block grant is awarded to an institution, rather than to an individual; it implies that the decisions on exactly what research is done are made locally. Brown U. Chicago; Cornell; Harvard; U.
Materials and Equipment - Whitewares
Illinois; U. Maryland; M. North Carolina; Northwestern; U. Pennsylvania; Purdue; Stanford. Case-Western; U. Connecticut; Lehigh; U. Missouri, Rolla; Penn State U. Wisconsin; Washington U. Louis; U. Massachusetts; U. The last three have institutes dealing with only one class of materials—polymers. Total Nonblock External Funds per Member res.
Related Departments with Substantial Research Activity. See text. Institutions which have a materials-center building providing a physical and intellectual focus for major materials research programs, relatively strong centralization of administration, a major degree program in materials, together with strong materials research in solid-state physics and chemistry.
Institutions with materials research programs not focused in a centralized laboratory, but often large and typically strong in the basic sciences, and run by a committee of senior faculty, with no or small materials-designated degree programs. At this point, it may be useful to review briefly the initial objectives of the materials-center concept as a precursor to examining their present character and effectiveness.
The newly established Processing Research Institute at Carnegie-Mellon University would likely place in this category. A widespread belief developed that many more Ph. It was recognized that solution of associated advanced materials problems depended on integrated contributions from a number of scientific and engineering disciplines. The strong pace of solid-state science pointed to a need to broaden and strengthen correspondingly the scientific background of many of the Ph.
The idea of interdisciplinary materials centers arose as a means of meeting these various needs. A novel feature of the original federal advisory committee recommendation was the block-grant funding mechanism, whereby the decision process for selecting individual research topics was transferred from the agency to the campus. Instead, they derived support from a variety of sources, including the university and the state, but principally by the aggregation of smaller contracts.
Currently, about one-third of all the centers operate in this way. The general objectives of the initial block-funded materials centers were defined by the work statements accompanying the contracts with the universities from ARPA and AEC. These statements were as follows:. To this end, theoretical and experimental studies in such fields as metallurgy, ceramic science, solid-state physics, chemistry, solid-state mechanics, surface phenomena, and polymer sciences shall be conducted, as well as other research investigations which may be mutually agreed upon by the contractor and the Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Research to be Performed by Contractor The scope of the work under this agreement is unclassified and shall consist of research as may be mutually agreed upon by the contractor and the Commission in the broad fields of ceramics, chemistry, metallurgy, and solid-state physics.
The research will be directed toward or supportive of the furtherance of a fundamental understanding of the nature of materials, predominantly solids. Because of the strong interest of the Commission in radiation effects and in the influence of defects, both chemical and physical in the. The work will also include such other studies, investigations, and services in this general area as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties. The scope of work under this contract is unclassified and shall consist of research in the broad fields that follow:.
This research shall be directed toward, or in support of, furthering a fundamental understanding of the nature of materials, particularly solids. While neither of these agency work-statements mentions education or the training of manpower as an objective this area was outside the DoD and AEC authority , it is clear that starting such programs at universities implied such a goal also. Discussions during the COSMAT study with administrators involved in the initial materials center programs indicate that their general perception of the intent of the federal agencies in initiating these laboratories was as follows:.
To develop the basic sciences of materials to new levels of sophistication and to develop an applied science which could harness this new knowledge to national efforts to solve advanced materials problems. To increase the number of Ph. To establish university research units which would emphasize interdisciplinary activities in research and teaching. Consideration is now given to describing the principal resources for materials research at those universities with materials centers—funding,. Data on research support for the 28 institutions were listed in Tables 7.
It is important to exercise some caution in interpreting this information. For example, the data reported in the column on Total External Research Support via Center will vary in meaning depending on local administrative arrangements. In some cases, the center appears to be principally a vehicle for the distribution and management of the single block grant e. At the other end of the spectrum, there are centers which serve principally as the main channel for materials research support for faculty from several departments e.
The best index of materials research activity at a given university appears to be given by a composite of three columns in Table 7. The first lists block-funded support via a materials center, which is known unambiguously. The second lists the research support via the materials departments which is also accessible, although there may be some modest overlap with the center in allocating technician and facility charges, etc.
In some instances, the figures for research support in the materials center include only the funds administered or processed explicitly by the center. This may be the single block grant only, but in other cases it may include 50— individual contracts for research within the interdisciplinary setting of the center. In still other cases, where the figures are for the total research of all the faculty members affiliated with the center, these numbers tell little about the materials research on a campus, inasmuch as many of the faculty in the related departments may devote only a portion of their total research to the materials field.
Despite these shortcomings in detailed information, the tables indicate significant general characteristics concerning the overall scale of activity. An unexpected finding is the circumstance that, among these three groups, the nonblock-supported group has some well-established programs with buildings, degree programs, etc.
Also, the middle group includes a number of major materials institutions despite the. However, while there had been some expectation that civilian agencies such as the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development would begin to increase their support for materials research, this has not yet developed in a substantial way. Capital equipment among the centers shows a much bigger spread, even in equally well-funded laboratories.
There is a good correlation between the scale of block funding and the amount of equipment at the centers. The number of faculty associated with each materials center Table 7. In any assessment of the effectiveness of a center, the total materials research of all faculty who are members, whether paid by the center or not, is an important indicator of the total university effort. The level of active participation in, and intimate concern for, the affairs of a given center by the faculty involved is likewise an important factor.
Attempts to measure these parameters are difficult, and the delineation of the FTE faculty paid through the center is one such attempt. In view of this significance, a revised second questionnaire was mailed to respondents to try to insure that there had been no misunderstanding as to the definition of full-time equivalent. No changes resulted. From the data returned, of those faculty receiving some salary support from center funds, the average FTE involvement is found to be between one-third and one-fifth of the salary.
However, it appears likely that some universities may have paid some research salaries under research categories other than the materials center, although the activities might be relevant to the center. Others may not have charged any grants for research time. Finally, it was not always clear from the data that the FTE returns were referring to the same year academic or calendar in all cases. In trying to estimate the possible effects of such uncertainties on the data, it was recognized that some faculty members may concentrate their research in the summer months and, in addition, may devote up to half their time to research during the academic year.
Hence, a few faculty members, very active in research, could be devoting two-thirds of their time to research on a month basis. In cases where the universities do not charge the contracts for the. Given this assessment of the FTE faculty parameter as an indicator of faculty effort in the centers, its relation to total center funding can be examined for the full spectrum of centers currently in operation. Such a relation is plotted in Figure 7. Figure 7. The ratios should not necessarily be interpreted as the cost of a FTE-supported man-year of faculty research, but the rather large differences in the investments per unit of faculty time do point up the need to examine the corresponding variations in what results from such investment.
This concern will be addressed later. The above figures for research at the materials center provide some useful budgetary indicators for administrators. Thus, a major materials center at a university would seem to require a minimum effort of 10 to 15 FTE faculty members. As to research emphases at the various materials centers, the data obtained through the COSMAT questionnaire were not sufficiently informative. General impressions of the research in the 12 laboratories started under the ARPA-DoD program are given by the disciplinary distribution of the faculty involved:.
Furthermore for both the AEC and ARPA laboratories, while work statements of the block grants of over a decade ago mentioned all classes of materials, specifically including ceramics and polymers, the qualitative evidence is that these classes of materials received much less attention than did metals and semiconductors. However, in many centers this imbalance has begun to be rectified in recent years.
Nevertheless, all the major materials programs concerned principally with polymers have grown up in nonblock-funded laboratories. However, the new research areas most frequently proposed are in biomaterials and substantially more effort is being projected there than for ceramics or polymers. These two directions of future change appear somewhat inconsistent in that the magnitude of the industrial technology associated with ceramics and polymers is enormous compared to that for biomaterials.
We turn now to the question of the product of the research carried out by the materials center, i. Most commonly this knowledge is communicated to the scientific and engineering world by publication in specialist journals and other publications. A valid measure of the effectiveness of the contributions from a particular center is hard to obtain because the overall impact is obviously dependent upon factors such as quality, as well as on number of publications. Some research which has had a major influence on the direction of science has been published by faculty members whose rate of publication may be low.
However, a useful index can be obtained if the count of the number of papers is restricted to those published in refereed journals, and if the reported data refer to a large group of scientists, to individuals over a large period of time, and to a coherent subject-matter field. The resulting data are shown in Table 7. It is evident from these figures that while some trends may exist, the total faculty and total output of a center as tabulated here may not provide a proper assessment of the materials research on a given campus.
In other words, the spread in data is worthy of note and it also appears that some universities with outstanding reputations may rank rather low on those scales. It is instructive to compare the ratios of materials-center support to the number of published papers for the various universities.
The results are shown in Figure 7. While there are other products or outputs resulting from the same support, these relative figures are of interest, since publications are usually considered to be the major indicator of the amount of new knowledge generated. The ratio of dollar support to another principal product of university research—the number of graduate degrees per year— was also computed and is plotted in Figure 7. Unfortunately, the. Again, analogous to the publications, it must be emphasized that any attempt to identify this ratio uniquely with costs involved in training graduates would be misleading.
What these various results do show is that there are large variations from school to school in the research support per year required to result in a paper or a graduate. Hence, depending on whether the principal result sought is research papers or graduates different choices might be made to obtain the most appropriate result for which the research support is intended. The returns relating to joint publications proved to be more complete, although a few of the major centers failed to report. To some extent, these data underestimate the real interdisciplinary activity in that a number of the materials departments Table 7.
Thus, the publication records for materials research through the centers do provide evidence that an encouraging degree of interdisciplinarity has been achieved within the materials centers. Subjective views on the extent to which centers had succeeded in promoting interdisciplinary work were also requested by COSMAT. Many observers close to the materials centers, some of them being current or past center directors, expressed the view that the interdisciplinary activity was much more extensive and profound than is suggested by an examination of joint publications or contracts.
For example, that by day-to-day contact with other members of the center, many faculty members had themselves become much more interdisciplinary in their own experience and outlook. It is also claimed that many interdisciplinary contributions may be important but still not reach the co-authorship stage. In contrast to opinions from within the universities, the responses of senior materials administrators from outside the universities revealed much more mixed feelings about the achievements of the interdisciplinary centers; indeed, a few respondents expressed the view that interdisciplinary work had been achieved to only a negligible degree.
Moreover, a study of the authorship of papers emanating from the materials research laboratory of a high-. Since the most novel and distinctive feature of both the administration and funding in the materials area during the past decade was the interdisciplinary center, a survey was made by COSMAT of the expectations of the materials community, and the degree to which these expectations were met. Interactions with industry by the materials research centers have been relatively modest. However, the total research funds provided by industry for materials research at universities is substantially larger than it provides for the centers.
Thus, Table 7. On the whole, though, the data reported in Table 7. The attempts to establish productive interactions between university materials laboratories departmental or center controlled and various industries will be discussed later. The data on the centers, as presented and discussed in the preceding pages, and including both the costs and the output in terms of students educated and research published form part of the essential information for.
The most important goals which should be achieved by materials centers are: on a scale of 5 most important to 1. The general concept of long-range block funding for support of university materials centers is:. In man-years of senior faculty effort i. If in your view it is a good approach, what median annual level of funding provides the best compromise in the typical major university between the benefit of stability and creativity and the possible loss of outside evaluation and responsiveness to national changes?
One other approach to this difficult question may be found in attempting to assess the component departments whose faculties are involved in a center. This approach assumes that the quality of the associated departments can be taken as an index of the center quality. The appropriate information is available from the quality ratings of departments by the American Council on Education ACE as reported by Roose-Andersen in , based upon questionnaires circulated in the spring of Taking the aggregate of the ACE ratings of the Departments of Chemistry, Geology, Mathematics, Physics, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering, results in a list which contains most of the universities with block-supported materials centers together with a few nonblock-supported centers.
It has also to be emphasized, however, that many universities which have high-quality materials efforts, but without materials centers, such as Caltech, Princeton, U. It was noted earlier that the formally-designated materials departments carry out roughly one-third of the total materials research at the universities. In characterizing the research of these departments, of most interest is the emphasis on specific research topics, the resources applied, and the resulting output, i.
The nature of the research emphasis proved to be difficult to ascertain. Surprisingly, none of the federal-agency analyses provides such information on the university sector. The only indication of the research scope obtainable was through the items of research interest cited by faculty of materials departments in the U. Specific data on the distribution of sources of federal research support for the materials-designated departments were presented earlier.
The distribution of funds, by source, for such departments in is summarized in Table 7. Of this support, some This is in marked contrast to the funding at centers where NSF has become the dominant agency. The relation between the research support going to the individual materials-designated departments and the number of FTE faculty is shown in Figure 7.
The latter indicates some tendency for the support per faculty member to rise with increasing departmental support and faculty size,. Nielsen, editor, New York University The doctoral and publication outputs corresponding to the above research support are presented in Figures 7. The relationship between the average number of doctorates awarded annually by a department and the level of annual research support Figure 7. Likewise, the research output expressed as the number of publications per faculty member in relation to the number of graduate degrees awarded Figure 7. The evidence from the COSMAT survey indicates that there is relatively little interactive research in materials being done jointly by the universities and industry.
Specific coupling efforts exist in only 4 of 5 materials groups in the country. The most active of these are in four universities with materials centers having no block-fund support, and in one center having such support. Although the industrial perception tended to be that the degree of this interaction was too small, the universities alone do not appear to be accountable for this state of affairs; industrial management seems to have been unimaginative in its approaches to utilizing the potential resources of the federally-funded basic research groups at the universities.
A longer discussion of the problems and opportunities of industry-university coupling, including descriptions of the various programs, is given in Appendix 7D. Two basic patterns of coupling have been tried in the materials field: A: Industrial Coupling or Liaison Program between universities and industries alone; and B: the ARPA-coupled contracts and NSF experiments where the sponsoring agency serves a special role.
About 10 years old. Departments with 13 companies. About 3 years old. About 7 years old. Just starting. Seven Universities—Ultrahard Materials Program with 30—40 companies in cutting tool and grinding materials area. The ARPA approach was aimed very specifically at advancing selected areas of technology, on the basis of the following criteria:.
It must be lacking in sufficient commercial interest unless stimulated by adequate DoD support. The field must be small enough that support of the order of a million dollars per year is enough to permit a laboratory operation to attain close to world leadership. The area must be large enough that it is not intellectually confining, so that good people will find a wide enough assortment of problems to attract and maintain their interest. The ARPA experiment was basically not an attempt to innovate in interinstitutional interaction, but rather a program to accelerate science-technology transfer.
The principal active model, which emerges for the other and longer-lived programs, is of a small 10—15 list of companies, specifically associated in a formal manner with a particular laboratory. A key common feature is that the area of specialization of the university laboratory be of specific and particular interest to the companies involved.
This is the crucial distinction. Thus, among the examples given, it will be seen that the Lehigh program attracts chiefly metals companies, while that at Penn State University chiefly attracts electronic materials and ceramics companies. For the most part, interaction with industry was not a primary purpose of the federally block-funded materials research centers. Nevertheless, some of the block-funded centers have had wide-ranging, but informal, interactions with materials and local industries, and have participated in materials problems of practical interest.
These interactions have occurred via informal discussions, by members of the centers acting as consultants to industry, by the participation of members in national problem-solving study groups such as the ARPA Materials Research Council, and by industrial research administrators serving on the visiting committees of materials centers. A variety of organizational units within the universities make a contribution to the science and engineering of materials.
In the educational area, about 90 formally-designated materials degree programs of all kinds including materials science, solid-state science, materials engineering, metallurgy, ceramics, and polymer science—alone or in various combinations produce some B. Educationally, MSE has a relatively weak presence on the campus as a disciplinary activity—having some impact on the engineering curricula and essentially none on science departments.
Of the or so engineering schools, only about 65 have departments of materials. In part, this state reflects the stage of development of the field. Materials research is conducted within interdisciplinary centers, materials departments, and a wide variety of related departments. A particularly important development during the last decade in university research administration has been the emergence of the materials center and its block-funding concept.
Nevertheless, a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding appears to exist as to the current character and state of that area, even among those closely connected with the field. There are some 28 interdisciplinary materials research centers of various kinds existing as formal units at institutions in the U. Ten are not block funded, but a few of these are as large and diverse as several of the block-funded institutions.
Taken as a group these centers constitute a major national resource for sophisticated education and research in MSE. There is general agreement in the universities that block funding on campuses is a desirable and workable arrangement. However, there is a wide spread in all the quantifiable measures of the actual performance of such centers. Within the materials community, considerable diversity of opinion exists on the effectiveness of block funding as a whole with respect to the costs for producing research and training students, the degree of interdisciplinarity achieved, innovation in education, and interactions with government or industry.
Coupling of the university materials programs to industrial research has been modest. Generally speaking, the coupling experiments by ARPA do not seem to have left a major mark. Five formally organized programs coupling a materials center or unit to a group of industries exist, all save one at nonblock-funded universities. The adopted patterns have similar features, and provide a valuable starting point for other attempts. The last ten years have been an era in which the conceptual and industrial aspects of the science of materials have been developed and refined, along with a burst of activity in the basic sciences.
The next decade should see the test of the validity and utility of these concepts with thrusts toward the more applied areas. These criteria are:. Outputs per dollar of support, development of unique central facilities to aid materials research across the whole campus, graduate degrees, publications.
Quantity and quality of research and graduate students in both materials-designated and materials-related areas. Balance between basic and applied orientations and among different classes of materials. In addition to evaluating the center as an organization for research, the question of the effectiveness of the block-grant mechanism of funding requires attention.
That the potential benefits of block funding fall into two categories may not have been clearly recognized:. Stability of research planning, hence ability to tackle long-range, more basic problems. Major savings of faculty time in not writing proposals and in minimizing related administration. Availability of funds to get new faculty going, for acquisition of major pieces of new instrumentation, starting new areas as the ideas arise, etc.
Genuine Interdisciplinarity. Can be developed by propinquity, joint research programs, writing of joint papers, etc. Coherent Programs. Focused research is made possible on larger and applied problems. Central Facilities. Major equipment items and services can be developed and utilized by large numbers of faculty from different departments. When evaluated against these criteria, it is seen that the main areas where the materials center concept can be regarded as successful include:.
It drew attention to the emergence of coupled materials science and engineering as a new interdisciplinary focus of activity in a way which could not have been achieved otherwise: the development on several campuses of a true intellectual center of materials research, with a building, central facilities, key faculty members and their graduate students interacting with each other, and occasionally with government and industry.
These institutions now constitute a national resource of vast importance. The support led to several excellent research groupings of faculty members, the building-up of a reputation and attraction for good students, and the training of first-rate materials scientists, physicists, chemists, and other professionals. Another unique benefit was in efficiency through faculty saving their time in writing proposals and seeking support, and the agency officials likewise saving a great deal of administrative time.
A large number of students were trained in an excellent environment for advanced degrees. Conversely, criticisms or questions about the materials-center programs arise with respect to the following:. The increase in the materials degrees shows no evidence that this increase was any more than the normal growth curve of U.
The development of any special administrative mechanism for centralization or other effective sharing of facilities, etc. The dollar support associated with the output of research publications and with numbers of advanced degrees show a large variability. Allowing for all the factors which might affect these values, changes neither the fact nor the magnitude of the wide range in cost at universities which are otherwise very similar.
Whether the differences are attributable to particular management or accounting patterns, or actually to more effective work, merits attention, if the universities are to make best use of their resources in the future. The degree of interdisciplinarity has developed only modestly compared with industry, although better than in the traditional departments. There is only modest correlation between the availability of block funding and the existence of specialized laboratory buildings, or central facilities, or their scale.
There is a negative correlation between existence of block funding and interaction with industry. There is no correlation between large block grants and degree of interdisciplinary interaction. Excellence was achieved at many of the block-funded centers in the very same areas, while other important areas were neglected. For example, all the major polymer-research centers came into existence outside the block-funded schools.
On the question of what has been achieved by block funding which could not have been achieved otherwise, one of the most significant management developments has been the parallel emergence of strong university groups without the benefit of block funding; that is, the entree of block funding stimulated equivalent efforts without block funding. Case studies of such experiences might tell even more about the requirements for effective interdisciplinary work on campus. This includes no more than 4 or 5 entirely new Ph.
This appears to be due, at least in some measure, to the fact that the educational programs themselves have not been supported by federal funding but simply reflect the existing departmental structures or new research emphases. Private institutions have not fared significantly better than their public counterparts in this respect. There is still some question as to whether or not a new academic discipline of materials science or of materials engineering will emerge.
An unresolved issue on this point is the extent to which polymer science can be integrated into the rest of materials science. There is as yet no example of a well-known polymer-oriented Ph. Either such a new materials discipline with metallurgy, ceramics, and polymer science becoming branches or subfields within it more or less like chemistry and its division into physical, inorganic, organic, etc.
Indeed, the solution presently adopted by some of the largest departments points in the latter direction. These departments may offer three or four options in ceramics, metals, polymers, and a more basic undifferentiated materials science, which is an arrangement that allows a degree of specialization but simultaneously provides a common foundation. At present, there are real difficulties in achieving genuine intellectual innovation on curricular. Get This Book. Visit NAP. Looking for other ways to read this? No thanks. Building Materials. Page Share Cite. Terminal B. Preparatory B. All research universities Graduate schools a Headed for advanced degrees in Materials Science.
Terminal M. Selected universities esp. Technicians State universities, community colleges, other institutions Producing industries. The four questionnaires that were adopted and the relevant response characteristics were as follows: Questionnaire to all departments in the U. Instructional Activities. Naval Acad.
Jr-Srs av. Total Students av. Degrees av. Materials Eng. Materials-Related Departments. Examples of the recent trends toward more complex systems are: A large activity by some prominent people in alloy science, both dilute alloys nonmagnetic and magnetic and concentrated alloys, has led to the understanding of the electronic structure of impurities in metals i. Extent to which the thesis topic is concerned with materials. Physical Sciences: , Mathematics: 44, 3. Environmental Sciences: , 7.
Engineering: , Life Sciences: , Psychology: 62, 4. Social Sciences: 47, 3. Other Sciences n. Falk, NSF. Illinois; Iowa State. Utah The last three have institutes dealing with only one class of materials—polymers. Funds to Center Support to Academic Depts. Louis At this point, it may be useful to review briefly the initial objectives of the materials-center concept as a precursor to examining their present character and effectiveness. Research to be Performed by Contractor The scope of the work under this agreement is unclassified and shall consist of research as may be mutually agreed upon by the contractor and the Commission in the broad fields of ceramics, chemistry, metallurgy, and solid-state physics.
Research to be Performed by the Contractor Modification in The scope of work under this contract is unclassified and shall consist of research in the broad fields that follow: Metallurgy and Materials Research Physical Metallurgy and Ceramics Materials Properties and Processes Structure of Materials Solid-State Physics and Crystal Physics Energetic Particle Interactions This research shall be directed toward, or in support of, furthering a fundamental understanding of the nature of materials, particularly solids.
Discussions during the COSMAT study with administrators involved in the initial materials center programs indicate that their general perception of the intent of the federal agencies in initiating these laboratories was as follows: To develop the basic sciences of materials to new levels of sophistication and to develop an applied science which could harness this new knowledge to national efforts to solve advanced materials problems. General impressions of the research in the 12 laboratories started under the ARPA-DoD program are given by the disciplinary distribution of the faculty involved: Number of Associated Faculty Physics Materials 98 Chemistry Electrical Engineering 30 41 Other Engineering, Math.
The most important goals which should be achieved by materials centers are: on a scale of 5 most important to 1 Genuinely closely-coupled interdisciplinary research 4. Expec tation Perfor mance 4. Research in Materials-Designated Departments. Research Interactions with Industry. Pattern B Washington University St. These criteria are: Effectiveness of materials center management. Degree of interdisciplinarity achieved. Balance between individual idea-pursuit and work on coherent areas. That the potential benefits of block funding fall into two categories may not have been clearly recognized: Benefits automatically accrued : Longevity.
Benefits which may be achieved : Genuine Interdisciplinarity. Can be developed by propinquity, joint research programs, writing of joint papers, etc Coherent Programs. When evaluated against these criteria, it is seen that the main areas where the materials center concept can be regarded as successful include: It drew attention to the emergence of coupled materials science and engineering as a new interdisciplinary focus of activity in a way which could not have been achieved otherwise: the development on several campuses of a true intellectual center of materials research, with a building, central facilities, key faculty members and their graduate students interacting with each other, and occasionally with government and industry.
It demonstrated that block funding is perfectly feasible on a campus. State and private universities involved in materials research. Major state and private universities. State universities, community colleges, other institutions. California State Polytech. Schools with Metallurgy Faculties. Mining and Metallurgical Engineering. Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineering. Mining, Metallurgical, and Mineral Engineering. Mining, Metallurgical, and Ceramic Engineering. Minerals and Metallurgical Engineering. Metallurgical and Mineral Engineering.
Ceramic and Metallurgical Engineering. Physical and Engineering Metallurgy. Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science. Metallurgy and Materials Engineering. Metallurgy, Mechanics, and Materials Science. Materials Science and Metallurgical Engineering. Materials and Metallurgical Engineering. Chemical Engineering with materials. Mechanical Engineering with materials.
Total Departments:. Schools with Ceramics Faculties. Total Associated Ceramics Faculty:. Total Associated Ceramics Graduate Students:. Total Associated Ceramics Seniors:. Data taken from the series of Education Yearbooks by J.
- Resolving Conflict (Communicators)!
- Essentials of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.
- Seam 2 x Web Development.
- Genetic Engineering: Principles and Methods.
- EM Modeling of Antennas and RF Components for Wireless Communication Systems;
First employers of M. Total No. Total Faculty. FTE Faculty. Materials Sci. National Totals from other sources. Graduate Faculty. Percent of all Engineering. All fields , students. Engineering 31, students. Metallurgy and Materials 1, students. Physical Sciences 29, students. Departments of. Department of. Other U. Amount Dollars in Thousands. Percent of Total. Physical Sciences:. Environmental Sciences:. Life Sciences:. Social Sciences:. Southern California.
Block Support—10 Case-Western; U. Industry Coupling. Interdisciplinary Index. Materials Center Building. Major Materials Departments. New degrees in Mat. Facilities in Center. Support via Staff. Research Space sq. Partly Paid. FTE Paid.