Strategic Research Plan

Based on two key suggestions of the SVT during the Jan 2008 site visit were to re-articulate the thrusts, in order to give them a sharper focus and improve their internal connectivity, and to re-emphasize molecular-level activities. The ERC faculty team took these suggestions to heart and engaged in an in-depth examination of the structure and connectivity of the research program. This section outlines the new proposed research plan based on this comprehensive effort.

The process started during the second day of the Site Visit, and continued during a meeting of the C-SOPS Academic Leadership Team, held at Rutgers on Feb 21 and 22. During these two meetings, additional opportunities for improvement were discovered: (1) Some projects had outgrown their original scope and did not fit clearly into a single Thrust, (2) Some project involved activities that did not naturally fit together, (3) Some projects had an undesirable degree of duplication, and (4) Some activities needed by the test beds were currently missing. Moreover, it was realized that having the test beds as the only integrative components across thrusts was insufficient; indeed, science-based integration of the thrusts was also necessary. Thus, the three existing thrust leaders (Professors Venkatasubramanian, Dave, and Cuitino) were tasked with developing a plan for reorganization of the research program that would meet the following goals:

(1) Redefine the center thrust structure such that

a. Thrusts would become effective outcomes-driven interconnected drivers for scientific inquiry, with well defined scope and goals, clearly identified barriers, and achievable anticipated deliverables;

b. Thrusts would identify and support all activities needed to achieve the thrust scientific goals; and

c. All scientific activities conducted at the center would belong naturally to a thrust.

(2) Re-examine Test Bed plans, such that all activities needed by the Test Beds were identified, and all necessary interconnectivities along the test bed critical path were understood.

(3) Redefine project structure such that

a. All activities addressed by a project are needed by a thrust and/or a test bed, ensuring that the projects promote vision the thrust, while contributing to a test-bed;

b. Projects would minimize undesired duplication, while identifying project connectivity and opportunities for collaboration among schools; and

c. Projects would have clearly defined scope and goals, scientific deliverables coordinated with the relevant thrusts, and technology deliverables coordinated with the test beds.

(4) Scientific working groups would be created to examine and enable scientific connectivity between Thrusts.

In parallel, all project leaders were asked to re-articulate their project scope and deliverables, so that an updated inventory of activities, current and planned, could be used to inform the structure of the new Thrusts. The Thrust leaders engaged in detailed discussion of projects during the May 14-16 IAB meeting (held at Purdue) and then convened a workshop of all project leaders, held in Newark on July 18^th, 2008. Discussions with project leaders and test bed coordinators continued and intensified during the September 15-18 IAB meeting (held at Rutgers) and during the ERC meeting in Bethesda. Out of these discussions a consensus emerged:

(1) The central scientific goals of C-SOPS were confirmed:

Goal A: To understand impact of material properties and processing inputs on product structure and performance, and

Goal B: To use this understanding to design, optimize, and control products and their associated manufacturing processes.

(2) Center research activities would be organized along a new thrust structure, composed of four cohesive and interconnected thrusts, graphically depicted in Figure 2P-1, and following the logical conceptual flow of product engineering activities: (A) Materials Formation and Characterization, (B) Design, Scale Up, and Optimization of the Manufacturing Process, (C) Structural Characterization and Performance Modeling of Product, and (D) Integrated Systems Science.

These four major research themes are cohesive and intuitively clear, and their interconnectivities, depicted in Figure 2P-1, is also clearly understood. The first thrust focuses on the formation, characterization, and modification of incoming materials. The second thrust focuses on the design, scale-up, and of the processes used to transform incoming materials into products. The third thrust is concerned with the characterization of structured “products” and the determination of the effect of material properties and product structure on product function and performance. The last thrust provides a framework for collecting the information generated by the other three thrusts and using it for designing, optimizing, and controlling the entire process. Professors Dave, Cuitino, and Venkatasubramanian retained leadership of Thrusts A, C, and D, respectively, and they would be joined by Professor Jim Litster, who was asked to lead Thrust B.

(3) Two working groups, focusing on Molecular-level Phenomena (led by Professor Lynne Taylor) and on Material Properties and Sensing (Led by Professor Rodolfo Romanach), were identified as cross-cutting activities needed to achieve scientific integration across thrusts.

The scope, scientific goals, scientific deliverables, and inter-dependencies of the thrusts were defined through multiple discussions. Subsequently, for each thrust, a project line-up was developed seeking to enable both the scientific deliverables of the thrusts and the technological needs of the test beds. While many projects from the pre-existing structure were retained with little or no change, some projects were re-defined to minimize overlap, and a few projects were sub-divided to ensure sharper focus and improved management. Finally, for each project, a project plan was developed, defining the project scope, its connection to thrusts and test beds, its deliverables, and its time table. The resulting 21 project lineup, as it relates to the pre-existing 14 projects, is presented in Table 2P-1.

The entire structure was presented to the Scientific and Industrial Advisory Boards of the Center during a two–day workshop held in Puerto Rico on February 2 and 3, 2009. The proposed structure was thoroughly discussed, and unanimously approved by representatives from both boards, who discussed it jointly but voted on it separately. These discussions are documented in Appendices IV, V, VI, and VII of this report. The proposal has also received positive feedback from the faculty participants and the ERC student body, who provided feedback via anonymous survey. The enthusiastic support of the students is documented in Appendix VIII, independently authored by the SLC.

The proposed new structure allows for better connectivity of projects within and across thrusts. Concrete examples of project and thrust integration, illustrations of how the previous projects have been logically revised and sub-divided are shown in Figures 2P-2 to 2P-4. Figure 2P-2 shows how projects related to powder compaction (B-4: Roll compaction and B-5: Tableting) complement each other and draw on models developed through thrusts A and C. The output from these projects provides the input for developed reduced order design and control models for the Manufacturing Science thrust D. Figures 2P-3 and 2P-4 gives similar examples for dry powder flow behavior and suspension and melt solution based products respectively.

The remainder of section 2.3 provides a description and work plan of each of the proposed four new thrusts, the coordinated research plans for the center test beds, and the work plans for the two proposed working groups. A detailed work plan for each of the new proposed projects in provided in Volume II of this report.