Further, there is. In this section, some aspects of coupling between disciplines, between activities, and between institutions will be examined together with factors that influence the effectiveness of such arrangements with MSE.
Coupling, as we usually regard it, applies to mechanisms for promoting cooperation, collaboration, and knowledge transfer among individuals, among different parts of an organization, and among institutions. In trying to arrive at a description of this multiply-connected system, it is helpful to note some important dimensions of MSE:.
Geographic coupling may be as close as the same laboratory or cooperation may extend over continents. One project may find extremely tight coupling between science and engineering necessary, while another may involve only one or the other. Some developments in MSE have required contributions from many disciplines; others have been pursued within just one of the classical disciplines,.
In some programs involving several people, the coupling has occurred on a person-to-person basis; in other cases, the coordination is effected through organizations so the individual investigator need not be personally involved in the transfer of his specialized knowledge and findings to other disciplines.
The material of concern may be as simple as a nearly perfect single crystal of one element, or it may be as complex as a composite containing many elements, phases, and impurities.
MSE is a multidisciplinary MD field within which there are increasing opportunities for interdisciplinary ID programs and projects.
In the loosely-coupled, MD mode, organizations may be guided by an overall purpose or theme see below which serves as a natural stimulus, a common interest, for bringing about collaboration between professionals in different disciplines D in a more or less spontaneous way. But it is by no means necessary, or even desirable, for every individual to work in collaboration with others.
Some will do so much of the time, others only part of the time, and yet others not at all, each according to their interests and effectiveness. However, the contributions of all are important to the overall purpose of the. An individual working on his own is generating knowledge which others will want to draw on, but he himself may do nothing beyond using the traditional vehicles of talks and publications to see that his knowledge is made available to others.
To see that this knowledge gets effectively coupled into other projects is then much more the responsibility of the management or sponsors who are presumably aware of what everyone in the organization is doing and why it is being supported. In the larger context, the MD mode preserves many more of the traditional academic freedoms for the individual than does the ID mode. But the MD mode is probably also a good description of the inclinations of academic metallurgists and ceramists; for example, the metallurgist studying the principles of spinodal decomposition is probably no more tightly coupled into an overall purpose than the solid-state physicist who is developing a fundamental understanding of the nonlinear optics of a crystal.
Both will spend most of their time pursuing their own ideas and researches, but both may eventually recognize the practical implications of their work and sense when it is likely to be useful to establish contact, and perhaps even short-term collaboration, with professionals who are more application-oriented.
To help further illustrate the nature of the MD mode—essentially all of solid-state physics is vital for MSE, but by no means does this imply that all solid-state physicists are tightly coupled into MSE all the time. The more tightly-coupled ID mode of collaboration may involve a group of professionals, drawn together from various disciplines to tackle a specific mission or reach a stated goal. It implies a commitment on the part of the individual to choose his own direction and the corresponding time scale in support of the ID group objective.
The individual is constrained to spend a major part, if not all, of his time working on the group project. Obviously, this ID mode is more acceptable to those persons who find satisfaction in the cooperative achievements of a group, and is less so to those who value an individual sense of achievement more highly.
This ID picture is synonymous with the way in which much of industry tackles its development and engineering work. It also is more typical of short-term e. Individuals from different disciplines can work most effectively with each other if they have a common language. The materials field provides several such common languages which transcend disciplinary boundaries. These languages provide an intellectual catalyst for ID efforts. The common languages include basic theories and concepts about solids, materials-processing methods, experimental techniques and instrumentation, and.
Such languages emphasize the features that are common to metals, ceramics, plastics, electronic materials, and natural products. Some examples of these common languages are described below. There are some basic physical models of solids which have been shown to apply to many materials.
One of the most important of these is the recognition of the defect nature of solids. At one time it was thought that single crystals were nearly perfect geometric arrays of atoms or molecules in the particular structure revealed by x-ray diffraction. Through experiments on single-crystal filaments, on semiconductors, and other work, it has been shown that practically all solid samples contain important defects. Many of the properties in turn, particularly electronic, optical and mechanical, are dominated by the defect structure.
The concept of defects in solids is a fundamental building block in understanding the behavior of any solid material. Chemical impurities are a special type of defect. The importance of an impurity to both the chemical and physical properties of solids has been revealed particularly through the extensive studies of semiconductors and metals, and is now being applied to other materials.
The idea of a band structure is another unifying concept which has been proven in studying many types of materials. Phase relations and thermodynamic equilibrium have also played key roles in greater understanding of conductors and insulators of crystals and amorphous materials.
The concepts of nucleation and growth, of diffusion and segregation are applied to many classes of materials. Studies on the deformation of metals have provided essential inputs to understanding the deformation of ceramics and glasses. The idea of a domain has played a major role in magnetic and ferroelectric materials which, in turn.
Another example of a prevailing physical entity is the grain boundary. On its simplest level, the grain boundary is an array of dislocations caused by the intersection of two single-crystal regions oriented at an angle with respect to each other, but they are usually much more complex. Grain boundaries are of dominant importance in any polycrystalline solid regardless of its material or classification.
The methods of materials preparation have also been a factor in minimizing the differences between the old materials classifications.
The development of solid-state devices requiring highly purified materials was built upon the knowledge gained of segregation at a solidification front as studied earlier in metals. Techniques for growth of crystals of one particular type are often shown to have much more general application.
The advent of complex materials-preparation schemes such as the combination of high temperature and high pressure leads the investigator to search for opportunities to exploit his technical investment in other types of material. Basic science couples very closely with MSE in the area of diagnostic tools for direct measurements of phenomena occurring at the microscopic and atomic levels.
In the past it has been basic research, particularly in all branches of physics, which has given rise to the new and powerful measurement techniques, and it is to be expected that this will continue in the future. Many of the newer diagnostic techniques are sufficiently difficult to master that individuals specialize in the technique itself.
The unifying influence then results from the natural desire of the investigator to apply his instrumentation to as many different materials as possible. A related factor bringing together an unifying approach to all materials is that of evaluation and nondestructive testing. Again we see detection methods developed over the past few years which are applicable to many types of materials. Examples are gamma ray and neutron inspection, helium-leak detection, infrared imaging, holography, ultrasonics, and acoustic emission.
Another development having a strong influence on the unification of MSE is the high-speed digital computer. Most materials problems are complex, and particularly so if they are involved in engineering application. Only rarely does one encounter a materials problem in which the important phenomena can be treated in a mathematically simple way.
As a result, until recently, it was necessary to make grossly simplifying assumptions in order to yield a mathematically tractable problem. More often than not, these simplifications were strongly material dependent and, therefore, highly restrictive. With the aid of high-speed computation, it is now possible in some cases to start with fundamental principles and to keep track of many of the complexities of a real material in analyzing its properties in terms of structure and composition.
Not only does this elucidate the relation between the scientific knowledge and the external behavior of a materials, but also revealed is the common dependence of diverse materials on the same scientific models or concepts. Success of inhouse governmental laboratories and industrial laboratories in MSE has reflected especially the degree to which the overall mission of the laboratory has been defined, understood, and accepted, so as to provide a central interest that draws professionals from different disciplines together and provides continuity in basic studies beyond the span of individual development projects.
In striving to follow the overall purpose of an organization, there are usually tempting opportunities into byways which often have to be resisted. Otherwise, the greater goals would become fragmented and the main capability to focus a diversity of knowledge from many fields of science and engineering.
As Dr. The notion of a combination of gifted people from various disciplines of science and engineering, working together intimately but independently, is an institutional approach which has arisen almost entirely in the past few decades. A clear understanding of the institutional objective on the part of the assembled community is vital, but the objective must be very carefully chosen and stated—it must be sufficiently important, suitably broad, and technically meaningful that talented individuals will be inspired by it, challenged to help achieve it, and rewarded by a sense of worthwhile accomplishment as progress is made toward the goal.
The continuing overall purpose of an organization may well be in the areas of human needs. Themes such as energy, transportation, defense, health services, communications, are broad enough to draw on many disciplines, yet specific enough to give all a sense of mission.
Such themes serve in a variety of ways; they can foster cohesiveness in an organization and help create an esprit de corps; they can facilitate decision-making as to which course to follow in research, personnel and program planning, etc. The latter point is especially noteworthy in that basic research often flourishes, and even the scientists themselves become specially intrigued, when a connection can be traced between the basic research and important new applications—for example, trying through basic research to determine what limits the superconducting transition temperature of a material is spiced by the realization that a breakthrough in the theory might have tremendous consequences for energy technology.
Interdisciplinary themes such as those just mentioned, while common in industrial and governmental organizations, are still relatively rare on the unviersity campus. Yet they would appear to offer challenging and timely opportunities for academic evolvement. COSMAT believes that there is an urgent need for university science and engineering departments to devote at least part of their resources to advancing the frontiers of interdisciplinary research and education in areas of technology that relate to societal requirements.
There is a need to develop a better balance between the interdisciplinary and the disciplinary activities in academia. COSMAT also sees no reason why the selection of appropriate themes for foster effective interdisciplinary activities should compromise the traditional academic standards of quality and freedom.
Interdisciplinary research need not be of inferior quality to the traditional research by an individual—often the converse will be true. The effectiveness of interdisciplinary MSE is influenced by the climate in which it operates. The climate is set by the organization. In those establishments, materials developmental problems have been relatively clearly identified and have been closely coupled with functions, designs, and applications.
The management of such organizations has had the flexibility to involve appropriate individuals of various disciplines as required to solve the particular problem.
Such goal—or program-oriented institutions do not accept the constraint of organizing by disciplines, but rather are guided by the talent requirements to accomplish the mission. Thus, strictly disciplinary groupings in departments are avoided. Functional groups covering a broad range of MSE areas are established which, in turn, couple with project groups aimed at specific objectives. Geographical separation between individuals and groups engaged in MSE programs should be minimized.
Wherever there has to be a geographical separation, other ways have to be found for maintaining close communication. Common management is a frequent mechanism. Organizational and functional arrangements to be avoided are those which simultaneously create geographical separations and separations by discipline, or by research versus development versus engineering.
Small organizations, industrial or governmental, may be able to support only small programs in MSE if the usual commercial factors are operating. These small programs then have to be very directly related to the product-objectives of the organization if they are to be regarded as cost-effective—the outcome of, and time scales involved in, more basic research programs are generally too uncertain.
But in large establishments engaged in complex technologies, there is a much greater chance that results from various MSE projects will find applicability somewhere in the range of technological activities that the organization is concerned with. Size is, therefore, an important parameter, particularly as it affords flexibility to form new groups and mixes of personnel as new requirements arise. However, sheer size of the organization is not a guarantee of success in its various projects.
In its study of successes and failures in innovation in the chemical and instrumentation industries, Project Sappho revealed that perhaps the most important factor for success was the size of the project group rather than the size of the organization. A large organization spread over. Clearly, in a small organization, it is critical that the right project be selected, and therein lies the principal risk, whereas in a large organization care must be exercised to see that programs are adequately manned.
A corollary to this discussion is that, generally, small organizations are not justified to engage in basic materials research but have to concentrate on development, engineering, and marketing—entrepreneurship. However, to do this still requires individuals who are able to interpret and exploit the results of basic research performed elsewhere. Otherwise, the receiving institution would be less able to interpret, understand, or exploit any of the information it received.
By maintaining individuals and programs at the institutional interface, an organization is able to respond quickly to new developments wherever they occur? By the same token, an institution must generally expect to generate and transmit new information itself if it is to receive information in kind from other sources. While the above remarks are couched to apply to institutions, they apply equally to the country as a whole.
National competence in all aspects of MSE is vital if the U. The principle also applies particularly to the industry-university interface. If industry is to make best use of the fruits of basic research in the universities, it must undertake some comparable programs itself. Failure to do so can lead only towards two non-communicating cultures. This individual played the role of champion for a particular idea or cause and appeared to be a necessary, if not a sufficient, factor for overall success in the program.
To achieve coupling between science and engineering or between different disciplines, some one champion has to have the interest, understanding, and ability to span the entire program with some minimum level of competence in all sectors. If a given program is large, requiring several individuals in the materials and applications groups, or if the problem is of such a nature as to require a wide spectrum of disciplines, then the key individual or champion must have an unusually wide span of interests and knowledge.
Thus, at least one individual in the group must have an intimate understanding of the overall program and how the various elements will combine for the ultimate solution. It is tempting to assume that here is the proper place for a generalist. In practice, we find that the key individual is usually himself competent in some specialized field, but in addition, he has made an effort to understand in some depth the nature of the problem and the character of the solution for each of the disciplines involved.
At the same time, the key individual, if a scientist, should also appreciate the engineering constraints, or if an engineer, be conversant with the scientific aspects of the problem. While recognizing the advantages of such a group effort, we must at the same time note the irreplaceable value of a collection of knowledge and understanding in one mind. The practical problems of the materials world are complex and normally require the insight provided by more than one specialty or discipline.
Furthermore, the interaction between two or more disciplines can establish a synergistic climate for creativity. As already pointed out, success of the interdisciplinary group depends very much on a clear definition or a well-defined common goal and the acceptance by the group members. But in addition, it is also desirable to manage the effort in such a way that each professional member is in a position to make an individual and identifiable contribution in his own specialty.
All members of the group should have some breadth of view and appreciation for the importance of contributions being made by other specialists. Yet, to the extent that any member prefers to maintain his disciplinary identity, he is likely to be better motivated if he sees the possibility of receiving recognition for his personal contribution. For a large project which must be completed in a limited time, it is necessary to organize a team of individuals in order that the job can be accomplished.
The requirement may simply be one of assigning sufficient manpower to complete the total work in the given time. An example might be the development of a new computer software system. This might be accomplished by appointing a lead system programmer and assigning a number of other programmers to support him by carring various parts of the overall project.
Similarly, in preparing the plans for a large building, the job could be broken down so that one architect might be responsible for one part of the project, another architect for another part and so on. One can readily think of other examples where development requires a team approach in which all the personnel are of essentially the same discipline. It is often associated with development programs whose magnitude and time scales require a number of individuals to complete the job within the allocated time.
In the small group limit, namely, two persons, the team approach often has two individuals of the same discipline and training; for example, two aerodynamicists or two chemists. Examples of such pairs are a physicist and a metallurgist; an aerodynamicist and a thermochemist; an electrical engineer and an inorganic chemist; and a metallurgist and a structural engineer. Thus, it is the interdisciplinary element which is important, not just the combination of two or more individuals.
In a typical development program, the project is organized under a project leader and consists of several professionals to accomplish the objectives in the time allotted. The supervisor must himself be technically competent, must be sensitive to the originality and judgment of the members of his group, and should have that undefinable quality which provides leadership rather than just direction. Nevertheless, in such a group there is a clear understanding of a supervisory-subordinate relationship.
No longer is there the neat arrangement of a project leader, but rather a way must be found so that the inputs from several members can have even weight. This requirement for a true group effort results from the very nature of the interdisciplinary problem which demands significant inputs from two or more disciplines. Without question, the most effective coupling between separate groups has been accomplished by the movement of knowledgeable and involved individuals.
Experience has repeatedly shown that a complex new materials process developed at one site can more easily be transferred to a different manufacturing location if some of the key individuals are also transferred. If that is not possible, then special attention must be taken to assure adequate transfer of technology from one site to another.
Industrial organizations and governmental agencies solve this problem by, first, defining clearly the required objectives, second, by supporting extensive travel between the two sites, and third, by applying special management effort.
The experience of the ARPA university-industrial coupling programs illustrates the difficulty of achieving effective interaction when compelling objectives common to the two locations are missing and where there is little or no personnel movement. The problems experienced in this ARPA program do not in any way reduce the need for more effective cooperation between university and industry. It does emphasize, however, that coupling is something more than just good technical work.
Attention must also be paid to perceptive management, to acceptance of common goals, and to the time required for person-to-person contacts and intergroup working arrangements to mature.
Further experiments on university-industry coupling are urgently needed. On campus, however , this coupling tends to be weak. The traditional academic structure, with departments matching disciplines, militates against this type of coupling,. Ways should be found to try block-funding for two or three faculty members in a joint effort to couple materials development with design for a specific product or service.
Consulting arrangements have been helpful in coupling university-generated knowledge to industry and governmental agencies. Joint appointments, where the same individual works both on and off campus, may be even more effective. The shifting of individuals from one location to another is an important element of coupling within an industry. This was particularly true during the rapid development of the new solid-state industry when many Bell Laboratory solid-state specialists moved into newly emerging commercial firms and also to a number of campuses.
A dynamic, two-way flow could further enhance information transfer in MSE. Many of the obstacles to effective coupling can be inferred from the preceding sections but a few additional comments are in order. In the early stages of an interdisciplinary materials program, the group may be composed mainly of basic research scientists with a relatively small number of engineers.
As the project progresses towards application, more engineers may join the group while the basic research scientists may drop off and move on to other programs that are starting up.
The literature on interdisciplinary research contains discussions of other roadblocks, too, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of interdisciplinarity. Some extracts from that study are given in Appendix 3K ; p.
Every professional field requires individuals of high caliber with regard to intelligence, insight, creativity, and motivation. MSE is no different. Actually, however, it must operate successfully with its fair share of the distribution of the available talents among professional people. The more meaningful question then becomes: What training and experience can be expected to supply effective contributors in the field of MSE?
Materials development is complex. In spite of the success of science in unifying the field, there still remains an amount of empirical knowledge which must be known by the practitioner. Furthermore, an individual knowledgeable in one aspect of the field must have a good working appreciation for the contributions which can be made by other disciplines and specialties. We have repeatedly emphasized the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of MSE and the requirement for individual contributors to be highly specialized in particular areas.
Metallurgy, ceramics, and polymerics appear to be merging toward a common discipline; but the range of materials problems faced by MSE is so vast that other disciplines such as electrical engineering, structural mechanics, physics, chemistry, medicine, and biology will continue to contribute in many important ways. To illustrate the varied concepts and viewpoints which different disciplines bring to a problem, Table 3.
From this listing, it is obviously unreasonable to expect one individual to fully absorb all of these different viewpoints and concepts to the degree that he can compete with specialists in any one field.
Moreover, these are not the only disciplines which contribute to MSE; Table 3. It is helpful to distinguish between those individuals who generate new knowledge in MSE and those who apply such knowledge.
There is a basic difference between these two activities and that difference must be reflected in the training which is appropriate. The creation of new knowledge implies that the investigator is fully informed of preceding work which has been done in his specialty.
In addition, he must have mastery of analytical and experimental techniques peculiarly suited to his line of investigation and, above all, the time for careful measurements followed by detailed analysis and intellectual scrutiny.
Therefore, the logical preparation for a substantial number of contributors in the future will be at the doctoral level. The heavy content of science in MSE makes the higher-level degree a natural training route for those who will attack the most basic problems in the field. During the past dozen years, academia has been remarkably effective in preparing individuals for careers in materials science by training at the masters, doctoral, and postdoctoral levels. The establishment and support of the interdisciplinary materials research laboratories played a central role in this response of the universities to emerging needs of technology.
The high level of accomplishment in materials science needs to be maintained, but it is also time to recognize that the broad spectrum of MSE should be fully reflected in the academic educational program. In particular, materials engineering now requires similar upgrading, emphasis on interdisciplinarity, and major facility investment which materials science has enjoyed through the interdisciplinary.
TABLE 3. Use some theoretical models, but depend more on correlations, classifications, and comparisons to deal with chemical problems. Adapt theory from physics and chemistry but add empirical approach to achieve results. Make extensive observations followed by empirical relationships, rules, and theories.
Use basic concepts plus laws on composition, thermodynamics, and kinetics statistical wiping-out of detail. Use elemental concepts plus general guiding principles or rules plus experience and knowledge of material classes. Have knowledge and experience to solve chemical-related problems in most efficient way. Have the interest, knowledge, and experience to solve practical problems within time and budget limitations.
Be interested in how of why, but oriented to application more than basic understanding. Use zero-order approximations or idealized representations to identify important factors. Deal with multiphases, partial crystallinity, grain size, texture, defects, and thermomechanical history. An individual whose principal function is the application of knowledge relating structure, properties, and processing to materials function and performance can contribute with a broader and less specialized training.
His aim is to understand existing knowledge in MSE and to determine how it can be applied to new products or designs. In such an objective, he will naturally be more oriented toward processing and product across the entire field of materials.
The larger share of practitioners in MSE are found in this category because new knowledge in the field can be appropriately applied in many different situations. The generalist is particularly suitable for the smaller companies which do not have the resources to develop new materials properties as a normal part of product development. Because of the breadth and complexity of MSE, the masters level has become appropriate for those who will be mainly concerned with applications in the field, but even here, there is increasing attention to doctoral programs.
Because MSE, in the main, is a purposeful endeavor, it is desirable that students slated for advanced degrees should acquire some working contact with practical materials problems during the course of their education. One method which has worked well is the cooperative program in which a student alternates between an industrial job and a period on campus.
This scheme has been used primarily at the undergraduate level where the candidate may be limited in the skills which he can apply to a technical assignment. Nevertheless, most graduates of such programs feel strongly that they were benefitted in understanding how their academic training could be put to use.
Another excellent way for a student to gain some firsthand understanding of practical problems is summer employment in an industrial or governmental laboratory. This can be accomplished when the student is further along in his academic training and can, therefore, contribute more effectively.
The completion of the B. It is hampered to some extent by both students and faculty who regard the summer away from campus as an interruption in the graduate program. A broader view might suggest that such experience is an integral part of the educational process in MSE and should be balanced with the academic courses and research training on the campus.
Unfortunately, programs for student work experience in governmental and industrial laboratories suffer severe cutbacks during economic recessions.
However, this in no way reduces the importance of this educational component. Substantial effort should be devoted to creating opportunities for MSE students to gain practical experience before completion of their academic training.
The materials research performance of the universities in this country has been mixed. The output of fundamental materials science in academia has in aggregate been excellent.
However, materials research in the interdisciplinary mode has not faired quite so well when compared with the better industrial and governmental laboratories.
The universities have two cardinal principles which interfere with interdisciplinary materials research on campus. Each principle is securely based on centuries of experience in. The first is the organization of the university by branches of learning, in other words, by disciplines.
Once the disciplines such as physics, chemistry, or metallurgy have been established, the very nature of organizations and human beings is such that close cooperation within a discipline is more easily accomplished than across disciplines. In addition, the main peer groups off-campus are the professional societies which tend to be discipline-oriented. Thus, both peer evaluation and rewards are structured along disciplinary lines.
The second cardinal principle on campus is the pre-eminence of individual contribution. Scholarship and creativity are most easily identified and evaluated when they can be attributed to a single individual.
On the other hand, for some problems originating in nature and in society, such as many of those in MSE, a joint effort may be required for effective solution and the campus has not been a ready setting for such an arrangement. If materials research is to be adequately performed at the universities, then some modifications in the funding, traditions, and reward system are required. However, if the universities are to serve mainly as training grounds for professionals in MSE, then simply a change in emphasis and motivation may be required.
After all, the universities do not feel obliged to run businesses on campus in order to properly train future business leaders. Materials research is generally interdisciplinary in nature when conducted in industrial or governmental laboratories. Materials research laboratories on the campus, therefore, are ideally situated for bridging between the traditional discipline-oriented activities of universities and the interdisciplinary activities outside the campus.
But too frequently these laboratories have failed to take advantage of their opportunities along these lines. Instead, they have often served to provide additional support on campus to the traditional activities organized by discipline.
For example, central facilities such as electron microscopes and crystal-growing laboratories are not being used in an interdisciplinary way if physicists, chemists, metallurgists, and so on, simply take turns at using them rather than apply them to truly collaborative researches. In general, a major aim of materials research laboratories should be to provide opportunities for members from the vatious disciplines to undertake, when appropriate , interdisciplinary, collaborative programs, but by no means should every individual be required to be engaged in interdisciplinary work all the time.
In particular, the intensities of the infrared-active modes are given by This approach has widely been used in characterizing various classes of materials 57 , We show in Figure 4c—f the IR spectra calculated for four polymers, including orthohombic polyethylene, orthohombic polyoxymethylene, poly dimethyltin glutarate 24 , and polythiourea 20 , each of them is compared with the corresponding measured IR spectrum. The excellent agreement between the calculated and the measured IR spectra can be regarded as a supportive validation of the computational scheme based on DFT calculations used for this polymer dataset.
This dataset, which includes a variety of known and new organic and organometallic polymers and related materials, has been consistently prepared using first-principles calculations. The reported atomization energy and the dielectric constants are also expected to be accurate. The polymer dataset is one among many recently developed datasets which can be used for designing materials by various data-driven approaches. To be specific, this dataset is expected to be useful in the development of polymers for energy storage and electronics applications.
Curtarolo, S. The high-throughput highway to computational materials design. Matter 12 , Hautier, G. From the computer to the laboratory: materials discovery and design using first-principles calculations. Rajan, K. Materials informatics. Today 8 , 38 How can databases assist with the prediction of chemical compounds?
Predicting crystal structures with data mining of quantum calculations. Hansen, K. Assessment and validation of machine learning methods for predicting molecular atomization energies. Theory Comput. Meredig, B. Combinatorial screening for new materials in unconstrained composition space with machine learning. B 89 , Bhat, T.
Strategy for extensible, evolving terminology for the Materials Genome Initiative efforts. JOM 67 , Article Google Scholar. Pilania, G. Accelerating materials property predictions using machine learning. Rep 3 , Huan, T. Accelerated materials property predictions and design using motif-based fingerprints. B 92 , Mannodi-Kanakkithodi, A. Machine learning strategy for the accelerated design of polymer dielectrics.
Jain, A. Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation. APL Materials 1 , Saal, J. Materials design and discovery with high-throughput density functional theory: the open quantum materials database OQMD. JOM 65 , Taylor, R. Crystallography Open Database COD : an open-access collection of crystal structures and platform for world-wide collaboration. Nucleic Acids Res. PubMed Article Google Scholar. Otsuka, S. Reymond, J.
The chemical space project. Ramakrishnan, R. Quantum chemistry structures and properties of kilo molecules. Dat 1 , Wang, C. Computational strategies for polymer dielectric design. Polymer 55 , Sharma, V.
Rational design of all organic polymer dielectrics. Commun 5 , Lorenzini, R. Polymer 54 , Ma, R. Rational design and synthesis of polythioureas as capacitor dielectrics.
A 3 , Zhu, Q. Predicting polymeric crystal structures by evolutionary algorithms. Baldwin, A. Poly dimethyltin glutarate as a prospective material for high dielectric applications. Matter 27 , Rational design of organotin polyesters.
Macromolecules 48 , Effect of incorporating aromatic and chiral groups on the dielectric properties of poly dimethyltin esters. Rapid Commun. Banks, J. Jorgensen, W. B , Vanommeslaeghe, K. Hohenberg, P. Inhomogeneous electron gas. Kohn, W. Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects. Baroni, S. Phonons and related crystal properties from density-functional perturbation theory.
Ong, S. Python Materials Genomics pymatgen : A robust, open-source python library for materials analysis. Glass, C. Goedecker, S. Minima hopping: An efficient search method for the global minimum of the potential energy surface of complex molecular systems. Amsler, M. Crystal structure prediction using the minima hopping method. Low-energy structures of zinc borohydride Zn BH4 2.
B 86 , B 88 , Pathways towards ferroelectricity in hafnia. B 90 , Sharma, H. Projector augmented-wave method. B 50 , Kresse, G. Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals. B 47 , Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set. Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set.
B 54 , Liu, C. A , Lee, K. Higher-accuracy van der Waals density functional. B 82 , R Murray, E. Investigation of exchange energy density functional accuracy for interacting molecules. Comput 5 , Monkhorst, H. Support for SMEs. Software Products.
Go to Technical knowledge Search. Login Login. Members' Portal. Click here to see our latest technical engineering podcasts on YouTube. British Standards Institution. American Society for Testing and Materials. ISBN
0コメント