Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 67
MATERIALS TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES OF THE FUTURE Appendix A Recommendations PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Recommendation. The Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) should establish a permanent advisory panel of industry experts to work in parallel with OIT’s industry teams. Members of the panel could be drawn from these teams and should include at least one representative of each Industries of the Future member industry. The advisory panel would provide expert knowledge and advice to OIT program managers and ensure that the ultimate goals are kept in focus throughout the development cycle of a technology. The panel should perform the following functions: rank industry priorities and select programs assist in developing program metrics (to measure progress) review programs annually OPPORTUNITIES FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Recommendation. The Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) should focus its materials technologies programs on a few high-priority areas that would meet the needs of several member industries of the Industries of the Future Program and, when warranted, develop crosscutting programs to address these areas. Areas to consider include: corrosion, wear, high-temperature materials (including refractories), and materials models and databases. OIT should use the panel of experts to identify materials-performance requirements and process parameters for each industry as a basis for selecting crosscutting technologies. OIT should then work with the panel to develop and select programs. Recommendation. Funding by industry, universities, and the national laboratories for the development of improved refractories has been reduced although most of the members of Industries of the Future have identified a need for them. The Office of Industrial Technologies should consider starting a refractories initiative to encourage
OCR for page 68
MATERIALS TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES OF THE FUTURE cooperative research and development agreements and other mechanisms that would promote cooperation between industry and government agencies. OIT should consider supporting research and development in the following areas: reducing corrosion/erosion high-temperature reactions between molten metal, glass, and refractories; reducing the buildup of materials on the surface of the refractories; clarifying the fundamentals of monolithic refractories (including drying mechanisms and new binder systems); and developing data for finite element analysis design. OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation. The Office of Industrial Technologies should coordinate its materials technology programs with the technology road maps developed for the Industries of the Future (IOF) Program. Unfinished road maps should be completed, and all road maps should be updated every two to three years. Requests for research proposals should be linked specifically to the highest priority needs of the IOF industries. Recommendation. The Office of Industrial Technology should determine the highest priority needs in the technology road maps as a basis for identifying opportunities for crosscutting research. Industry experts should be engaged to define the materials-performance requirements and operating environments. This information could then be used to develop new programs and evaluate current programs. Recommendation. Current and new materials technology programs should be fully integrated into the market-pull strategy. Proposals for new programs should be evaluated based on how they will meet the highest priority needs identified in the technology road maps. All programs should be reviewed annually. Those that support the highest priority needs should be strongly supported; those that do not should be refocused or discontinued. Recommendation. A clear definition of “success” should be established at the beginning of all contracts, and progress should be measured annually by established metrics. A process should be developed for reevaluating projects that have not met their goals to determine if they should be continued.
Representative terms from entire chapter: