National Academies Press: OpenBook

Assessment of Corrosion Education (2009)

Chapter: 3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward

« Previous: 2 An Assessment of Corrosion Education
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Corrosion Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12560.
×
Page 94

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 Conclusions and a Recommended Path Forward Chapter 1 discussed how the corrosion of materials, leading to the degradation of their physical properties, is of great concern to society. Chapter 2 focused on the current state of corrosion education and its general shortcomings. The content of those chapters was based on the information elicited from the academic sector by a Web-based questionnaire, information shared at the two town meetings held at pro- fessional society meetings, information gathered informally between meetings, and from information and opinions gathered at the committee’s meetings. This chapter draws some conclusions from the findings in those two chapters, from the informa- tion gathered by the committee at the 2007 National Academies Materials Forum, and from the government, industry, and academic panels the committee convened at its meetings during the course of the study (see Appendix E for the relevant agen- das). It discusses the impact of the current situation on the education of the nation’s engineers, on the government and its assets, and on industry and its interests. In this chapter the committee analyzes the degree to which the existing education system has equipped the workforce at all levels to mitigate and minimize corrosion and assesses whether this education is adequate, whether current educational trends are going in the right direction, and whether a different path is needed. It concludes by recommending a path forward, with specific actions recommended for government, industry, academia, and the corrosion science and engineering community.  National Research Council, Proceedings of the Materials Forum 2007: Corrosion Education for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press (2007). Available at http://books.nap. edu/catalog.php?record_id=11948. Accessed January 2008. 63

64 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n The Importance of Corrosion Education Corrosion has been studied by scientists and engineers for about 150 years and remains relevant in almost every aspect of materials usage. As was demonstrated in Chapter 1, corrosion can have a great impact on the safety and reliability of an extremely wide range of articles of commerce, and its financial impact in the United States is very large. Examples of technology areas where corrosion plays an important role include energy production (for example, power plant opera- tion and oil and gas exploration, production, and distribution), transportation (for example, automotive and aerospace applications), biomedical engineering (for example, implants), water distribution and sewerage, electronics (for example, chip wiring and magnetic storage), and nanotechnology. It is reasonable to consider that the increasingly harsh physical environments to which critical systems such as energy production are subjected (one example is nuclear reactors that operate at high temperatures) and the proliferation of new technologies in support of societal goals (for example, the growing use of hydrogen as an auto fuel) may increase the cost of corrosion to society unless mitigating steps are taken. It has been estimated that remedial actions based on a better and more widespread understanding of the corrosion phenomenon could reduce significantly the financial burden of corro- sion to the nation. Although insufficient corrosion education in the engineering profession is not the only reason for the absence of such actions, the committee has concluded that it is a major one. Successful application of corrosion knowledge and understanding could save billions of dollars annually. Teaching engineers the fundamentals of corrosion and corrosion prevention is critical to both mitigating the damage done by corrosion as well as to the competitiveness of the nation’s industries and the effectiveness of its defense. The automotive industry is one example of the value of corrosion awareness in design. The use of galvanized steel body panels and improved paint- ing methods have improved the durability of car exteriors in relation to corrosion. However, the need to save weight has led the automotive industry to consider extensive use of magnesium. This is a paradigm shift that will require extensive advances in corrosion knowledge on the part of manufacturers, their suppliers, and maintenance organizations. An engineering workforce that does not know enough about corrosion will have a difficult time dealing with such paradigm shifts in particular and corrosion problems in general. CONCLUSION 1. Corrosion, or the degradation of a material’s properties as a result of its interaction with the operating environment, plays a critical role in determining the life-cycle performance, safety, and cost of engineered products and systems.

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 65 CONCLUSION 2. Advances in corrosion control are integral to the develop- ment of better technologies that make current, legacy, and future engineered products, systems, and infrastructures more sustainable and less vulnerable. Such advances will require corrosion-knowledgeable engineers and an active corrosion research community. CONSEQUENCES of THE CURRENT STATE OF Corrosion Education As discussed earlier in this report, most curricula in engineering design dis- ciplines require engineers to take a course in materials engineering, which typi- cally covers some basics of the relationships between structure, properties, and processing. While such a course would make an engineer aware of issues related to materials selection, corrosion, if covered at all, is usually discussed in only one lecture at the end of the course. The concepts related to materials selection in general and corrosion specifically are usually not reinforced in the other parts of the curriculum. As a result, graduating engineers have little understanding of corrosion in metals or how to design against it and even less when it comes to the degradation of nonmetals. Even those with bachelor’s degrees in materials science and engineering (MSE) or related fields such as metallurgy, ceramics engineering, and so on receive little or no education in corrosion science and engineering. Because there is significant pressure on MSE departments to include emerging areas such as nanotechnology and biomaterials, corrosion and other longer established areas of materials engi- neering are losing out. The committee is convinced that advances in the durability and longevity of engineered materials and the savings that will accrue are more likely if engineers understand the fundamental principles of corrosion science and engineering and apply them using best engineering practices. This conviction is based on great opportunities in three areas:  ABET, the recognized accreditor for college and university programs in applied science, comput- ing, engineering, and technology, defines engineering design as the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative) in which the basic science and mathematics and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Engineering design disciplines include mechanical engineering, civil engineering, aeronautical and aerospace engineering, and so on.  The Corrosion Costs study, carried out in 2001 for the FWHA and NACE International, noted that technological changes have provided many new ways to prevent corrosion and put available corrosion management techniques to better use. However, better corrosion management can also be achieved using technical and nontechnical preventive strategies. For a summary from NACE International, see http://events.nace.org/publicaffairs/images_cocorr/ccsupp.pdf. Accessed October 2008.

66 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n • Design practices for better corrosion management; • Life prediction and performance assessment methods; and • Improved corrosion technology through research, development, and implementation. Degradation of materials must be anticipated and minimized as much as pos- sible by the proper design, use, and maintenance of materials. Strategies for making technological advances and the development of best practices in the management of materials will depend on • Understanding current design practices for corrosion control; • Utilizing methods for predicting materials life and performance; • Exploiting advanced technologies for the research, development, and imple- mentation of new and better corrosion-resistant systems; and • Developing strategies for realizing savings. The ability of the nation’s technology base to develop these methodologies and technologies depends on an engineering workforce that understands the physical and chemical bases for corrosion as well as the engineering issues surrounding cor- rosion and corrosion abatement. Consider the role of engineering in bridge design and construction. One would not design a bridge without considering fatigue load- ings. Nor should it be designed without considering the continuous degradation of its materials by the environment in which it operates. Both the public and private sectors appreciate the need for engineers who have been taught corrosion engineering so that they can take corrosion into account during design and manufacture. The importance of corrosion education in today’s world continues to increase as the limits of material behavior are stretched to improve the performance of engineered structures and devices. Employers recog- nize the need for employees with competence in corrosion engineering, but as this report reveals they are not finding it in today’s graduating engineers, who have no fundamental knowledge of corrosion engineering and little understanding of the importance of corrosion in engineering design and do not know how to control corrosion in the field. In fact, the problem has become so critical that a principal concern of employers is that those making design decisions don’t know what they don’t know about corrosion. At the very least, it would benefit employers if they required that all engineers making design and materials selection decisions (see Box 1-3) at least know enough about corrosion to understand when to bring in an expert. For the purposes of this report, and as suggested in the charge to the com- mittee, the workforce has been divided into graduating engineers and practicing engineers. The committee found it helpful to conduct its assessment of practicing

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 67 engineers in terms of the impact of the current system on two sectors: government and industry. Graduating Engineers As discussed in Chapter 2 in relation to the so-called corrosion workforce pyramid, the corrosion workforce can be divided into a number of categories relevant to this report. 1. Technologists needed to perform repeated crucial functions, such as paint inspectors and specifiers, and cathodic protection designers and installers. 2. Undergraduate engineering students in MSE who upon graduation should be knowledgeable in materials selection; 3. Undergraduate engineering students in other design and engineering dis- ciplines such as mechanical, civil, chemical, industrial, and aeronautical engineering; and 4. MSE graduate students who upon graduation should be very knowledge- able in materials selection and in some cases will go on to be experts in the field of corrosion. The committee has found that corrosion technologists are often trained through the supervised performance of repeated and predictable corrosion tasks (on-the- job training), in conjunction with short courses and associate degrees offered by a few community colleges. The tasks performed by these corrosion technologists often require implementation of standardized practices. This training generally equips an individual to recognize a fairly well-behaved set of conditions and teaches how he or she would go about selecting the preferred solution. However it does not impart enough understanding so the individual could apply a body of knowledge to a situation he or she had not encountered before. The committee has found that at only a fraction of the MSE departments across the country do undergraduate MSE students take a course with some detailed corrosion content. The availability of such a course depends on faculty interest and expertise and how well corrosion competes with other subjects demanding a slot in the curriculum. In other design and engineering disciplines, undergraduate engineering students typically take one course, a survey course, in materials. But they learn little about materials selection and usually would have attended no more than one or two lectures on corrosion, if that. Whereas graduate engineering students specializing in corrosion get formal training in corrosion, graduate MSE students are typically not required to study it, and a corrosion course is offered only in departments where a faculty member has expertise in corrosion. The drop in U.S. publishing in corrosion science and engi-

68 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n neering (see Figure 2-7) indicates that research activity in corrosion has declined. The committee speculates, although with some confidence given the consistent anecdotal evidence it received from several quarters, that the decrease in publishing is concomitant with a decrease in the number of faculty with such expertise and, by extension, in the number of those who could teach the subject. It seems this situation is set to continue. According to the evidence the com- mittee heard, many of the highest ranked and most prestigious MSE departments in the country have no interest in creating or maintaining a corrosion research program. If taught at all in such departments, corrosion would be taught either by a faculty member with no intimate knowledge of the field or by someone with expertise in a related area, such as batteries or fuel cells. The committee recognizes that the inclusion of new course material—both required and elective—in engi- neering curricula makes it difficult to also cover topics like materials selection in general and corrosion in particular. CONCLUSION 3. Corrosion engineering education is not a required element of the curriculum of most bachelor’s-level programs in materials science and engineering and related programs. In many programs, corrosion engineer- ing education is not offered. As a result, most engineers graduating from bachelor’s-level materials-related programs have an inadequate background in corrosion. CONCLUSION 4. The bachelor’s-level education of engineers who serve on design teams involves too little detail in corrosion-relevant materials selection and almost no exposure to corrosion education in general. This lack of knowl- edge and awareness ultimately jeopardizes the health, wealth, and security of the country. CONCLUSION 5. Undergraduate and graduate education in the field of corrosion engineering requires an adequately funded university research community. Practicing Engineers in Government and Industry The lack of exposure to corrosion engineering principles and practices in their educational experience is a serious flaw in the training of many practicing materials engineers and design engineers. It appears to the committee that government agen- cies are particularly lacking in in-house corrosion experts. This is partly because such agencies believe they can outsource the search for the solution of a corrosion prob- lem to external consultants and partly because they feel they cannot find corrosion

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 69 experts to hire. For many of the same reasons, industry often ignores corrosion until a major problem occurs. Smaller companies tend to rely on vendor information. Most companies have few corrosion experts. They prefer to hire people with broad rather than specialized backgrounds and provide in-house training in corrosion. If there is no in-house experience, companies will outsource problems to consultants or to the vendors. As trained corrosion engineers retire, the committee is concerned there will be a shortage of trained people to hire as replacements. The implementation of effective corrosion prevention strategies requires an educated workforce of practicing engineers. In the context of this report’s con- sideration of the current state of affairs in corrosion education, it is important to understand the needs of the government agencies—the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers, and others—whether those needs are being met, and, if not, how the gaps in workforce understanding can be addressed. Current Workforce What does the community of practicing corrosion engineers look like? Accord- ing to a survey of the U.S. membership of NACE International, a majority of self-identified corrosion engineers have a background in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or materials science (Figure 3-1). A NACE International survey of its membership (Figure 3-2) shows that most members function as engineers, managers, technologists, sales and marketing professionals, research scientists, or consultants. Only 34 percent have more than a bachelor’s degree. More than one-half (54 percent) of corrosion protection practitioners have not taken a course in corrosion during their formal education. A large number (45 percent) began employment at the technician level before moving into the field of corrosion control. A large number (44 percent) of the active practitioners plan to retire or move to another field in the next 10 years. Close to one-half (48 percent) of the respondents think their position will be filled by someone with similar credentials and experience, and a large number (42 percent) said that their companies require a 4-year degree for the position they are currently occupying. Three-quarters of the respondents were between 41 and 65 years old, with 41 percent between the ages of 51 and 65 (Figure 3-3). Over half the current workforce has no formal educa- tion in corrosion and 90 percent of respondents think the corrosion education of current graduates is fair or poor (Figure 3-4).  The University of Akron survey of employers found that three-quarters of respondents saw “a shortage of qualified job candidates with corrosion engineering skill sets.” In the same survey, two- thirds of respondents thought that engineering graduates are “not equipped with an acceptable level of understanding when it comes to the effects and management of corrosion.”

70 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n Mechanical Materials Chemistry Civil Physics engineering science engineering Chemical Electrical Other Coating engineering engineering science FIGURE 3-1  Make-up of the corrosion Figure 3-1.eps The survey asked for the educational community by field. specialization of staff hired for corrosion engineering positions (more than one answer was allowed, bitmap image with mask & type corrections on third bottom label so the total exceeds 100 percent). SOURCE: Copyright 2008 Eduventures, Inc. Copyright 2008 the University of Akron. All rights reserved. Research conducted by Eduventures under contract for the University of Akron. As to whether there is continuing demand for corrosion graduates, a recent article and some information gathered by the committee indicate that the demand for corrosion professionals remains strong. The committee did an on-line search for engineer jobs on two popular career Web sites (Table 3-1). The search showed that there is a healthy demand for corrosion professionals. More compelling data were gathered for a recent report published in Materials Performance. The article reports that the NACE career center received 168 job postings between January 1, 2007, and October 24, 2007, up from 162 job postings in the whole of 2006. Cor- rosion positions in the engineering category accounted for 30 percent of the job postings, followed by technician (20 percent), inspector (10 percent), management (8 percent), research (8 percent), sales/marketing (5 percent), and “all other cat- egories” (19 percent). About 28 percent of the jobs posted were located in Texas. CorrosionJobs.com received between 75 and 100 job listings annually, with corro- sion technicians being the most sought after on that site, followed by specialists, engineers, project managers, and researchers. About half of the listings on that site  Kathy Riggs Larsen, “Wanted: Corrosion Professionals,” Materials Performance, December 2007.

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 71 Primary Job Function 1% 0% Engineer 1% 2% 0% 1% Management 2% 3% Technician/Technologist 6% 25% Sales/Marketing Inspector 8% Scientific Research Consultant Contractor Professor 8% Maintenance 18% Other 10% Chemist Retired 15% Designer Purchasing Education Level 5% 3% 9% Bachelor’s Degree 42% High School Master’s Degree 17% Associate Degree Other Doctoral Degree 24% FIGURE 3-2  Results of NACE survey of its membership. SOURCE: Aziz Asphahani and Helena Seelinger, NACE Foundation, “The Need for Corrosion Education,” Presentation at the Materials Forum 2007: Corrosion Education for the 21st Century. Figure 3-2(lower&upper).eps

72 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 Percent 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Prefer not to share 76 and higher Under 20 71-75 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-65 20-30 66-70 FIGURE 3-3  Age distribution of NACE International membership. The number of respondents was 1,595. SOURCE: Aziz Asphahani and Helena Seelinger, NACE Foundation, “The Need for Corrosion Education,” Presentation at the Materials Forum 2007:3-3.eps Figure Corrosion Education for the 21st Century. come from service companies, 40 percent from pipeline and operating companies, and roughly 5 percent from state transportation departments. Service companies in Houston, Texas, accounted for 30-40 percent of the employers. Government The committee heard from a panel of government representatives (the gov- ernment agencies and their representatives, along with other agenda details of the committee’s meetings, are listed in Appendix E). Based on these discussions, private informal data gathering by committee members during the course of the study, and the committee’s own experience, there are a number of important findings.

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 73 60 50 40 Percent 30 20 10 0 No Yes, in high Yes, in Yes, at a Yes, in an school community university apprenticeship college or vocational training 50 45 40 35 30 Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 Excellent Good Fair Poor FIGURE 3-4  Upper: Educational background of current corrosion workforce. The question asked was, Did you take “corrosion courses” in your formal education, including courses on corrosion preven- tion technologies? (check all that FigureThe number of respondents was 2,396. Lower: Opinions apply). 3-4(lower&upper).eps on the education of recent graduates. The question was, When hiring recent engineering graduates, how would you rate their knowledge of corrosion-related topics? The number of respondents was 41. SOURCE: Aziz Asphahani and Helena Seelinger, NACE Foundation, “The Need for Corrosion Education,” Presentation at the Materials Forum 2007: Corrosion Education for the 21st Century.

74 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n TABLE 3-1  Demand for Corrosion Professionals HotJobs Monster.com Search term April 23, 2008 May 12, 2008 Materials engineer   47 56 Materials scientist    5 13 Polymer engineer   11  4 Corrosion engineer   12 11 Corrosion scientist    1  2 Biomedical engineer 108 51 Metallurgical engineer   26 28 Mining engineer   16 19 NOTE: As measured by the number of positions advertised on two online employment Web sites. To get an idea of the demand for corrosion experts in today’s job market, searches were performed on HotJobs.com and Monster.com for corrosion engineers and scientists, along with other types of engineers. With the exception of “biomedical engineer,” the numbers from the two sites were remarkably similar. Finding. There is often no in-house corrosion expertise in the agencies repre- sented on the panel. The overwhelming sense of the discussion with the government panel led the committee to conclude that maintaining a corps of in-house corrosion experts is not now and probably never was a high priority. Likewise, the committee sensed the panel’s belief that although it is a good idea for engineers to have some corro- sion knowledge, current management appears to expect project managers to find an expert on demand when projects require that expertise, largely by outsourcing the job to a contractor or consultant. This situation is aggravated by the projected retirement of the few people with corrosion expertise and the absence of corrosion engineering experience in new hires. Despite the importance of materials selection in the design of any new engineering system, materials engineers typically make up only a small fraction of the engineering workforce. Corrosion engineers are an even smaller fraction. As a consequence, corrosion is often the last issue considered in design and is not treated with good fundamentals or good technology. Finding. Younger engineers working for the government have had little if any exposure to classes on corrosion and are unaware of the consequences of corrosion. New hires tend to come from disciplines such as mechanical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, and chemical engineering. Few if any of these  Government agencies represented on the panel were the Hanford Nuclear Waste Storage Facility, the Army Aviation and Missile Command, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Virginia Transportation Research Council.

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 75 new hires will have had any exposure to corrosion engineering instruction during their university studies. As such, their ability to diagnose corrosion problems and to introduce successful remediation strategies is limited. Finding. Since corrosion engineers can be hard to find and to hire, retiring corrosion engineers in government are not being replaced, and much of what is needed in terms of corrosion engineering knowledge is being learned on the job by other engineers. The committee heard from its panelists, backed up by the experience of those on the committee who are in the business of teaching engineers about corrosion, that demand on the part of industry for the few corrosion experts who are being graduated means that government agencies are having a hard time competing for the expertise. Moreover, the fact that government primarily hires U.S. citizens reduces the pool of eligible graduating engineers even further. In response, some agencies, like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have developed internal corro- sion action teams to provide short courses and in-house training for practicing engineers who have little or no corrosion education. While there is no doubt that experiential learning is valuable, some organizations interested in diagnosing a corrosion problem and remediating it will require workers who understand the funda­mentals, which comes from formal education aimed at producing a corro- sion expert. Though metallurgy is still taught at nine ABET-accredited universities in the United States, representatives of some agencies indicated to the committee that they no longer hire metallurgists. They also stated that they are hiring few m ­ aterials engineers, so that as retirements proceed an essential part of the engi- neering workforce is being lost. Finding. Cost, readiness, safety, and reliability are key elements of corrosion control in defense systems. That notwithstanding, corrosion still struggles to get attention. Remarkably, the government panel reported that the costs associated with corrosion are still not getting a lot of attention in many parts of the government. Indeed, it appears that on occasion corrosion mitigation is delayed in order to meet short-term financial goals. This creates a gap in the in-house knowledge and  The report Corrosion Costs notes that there is often a disconnect between those who control cor- rosion costs and those who incur the costs. This can lead to a mentality of “build it cheaper and fix it later” and a disregard for life-cycle costs. The situation is exacerbated when the builder is not made responsible for the repair costs (for example, federal funds are used to build bridges, yet state funds are used to maintain the bridges). This can lead to conflicts in the trade-off between lower construc- tion costs and higher maintenance costs. In addition, the indirect costs of corrosion, often borne by the public, may not be allocated to the owner/operator. Conversely, the owner/operator cannot take credit for or receive additional compensation for long-term savings.

76 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n expertise available to the government. To deal with this gap the government has taken the following actions: • Management looks to bring in outside experts in on a case-by-case basis through commercial outsourcing and consulting services. • Staff attend short courses presented by professional societies such as ASM and NACE International. • In-house training programs are often the solutions of choice—that is, people are hired and taught what they need to know. Delivering good courses on site, either by professional societies or by university faculty, seems to be a key method of providing instruction and learning opportuni- ties to staff who need to have in-depth knowledge of corrosion engineering or at least an awareness of some of its aspects. Industry The committee heard from a panel of industrial representatives and learned that the primary impact of the scarcity of corrosion engineers is on maintenance and plant operations. An exception is in the oil field and energy generation sectors, where corrosion control is receiving some attention in the design stages as a result of the demonstrated economic, environmental, and societal implications of corro- sion failures in these systems. Maintenance and replacement costs are not the main drivers for concern in these sectors. Rather, the costs of product loss, safety lapses, and contamination of the surrounding environment following a system’s failure are what is driving the concern. The committee also learned about another case where corrosion plays a large role and its control is included in the design stage: increasing the range of operating temperature for gas turbines, which improves their efficiency. This case is clearly related to the ability of turbine manufacturers to increase their competitiveness and, accordingly, their profit margin by marketing more efficient energy-generating machines. However, more often than not, corrosion is not a priority for senior manage- ment in industry. It is only when dramatic failures attributable to corrosion occur that either senior management or government regulators become interested in corrosion-related design or corrosion control systems. Given that the purpose of this study is to address the state of corrosion educa- tion in the United States, the committee attempted to summarize its finding on the current needs of industry based on the testimony it heard from the industrial panel it had assembled and on its own expertise.

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 77 Finding. Corrosion is generally treated as a maintenance and operational issue, not as a design issue. Industry needs for corrosion engineering education generally parallel those expressed by government panelists. Specifically, industrial panelists bemoaned the fact that few if any trained corrosion specialists are available. This is especially true in plant and product design. While there are many instances where corro- sion is included in design considerations (Box 3-1), in general it is not, with the result that unscheduled outages and extraordinarily expensive repairs often ensue. Corrosion is often treated as an aftermarket event, where inspection and sporadic maintenance, often unanticipated, are the rule. Exceptions are industries where corrosion damage can have near-catastrophic consequences. For example, in the oil industry, pipeline corrosion can lead to severe environmental contamination as well as loss of valuable product. Other industries where corrosion is typically (but not always) considered in design are where worker and public safety are involved. Examples are the energy production industry (notably the nuclear power indus- try), the aviation industry, and the chemical process industry. Still another reason for taking ­ corrosion-related phenomena into account in the design is life-cycle considerations. Too often corrosion-related damage is relegated to the sphere of failure analysis, after failures occur. Seldom is equipment or a component replaced proactively to forestall corrosion. The reliability of in-plant equipment, as well as of consumer products, is also an issue. The cost of product recalls necessitated by inadequate attention to corrosion at the design stage is monumental, exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars in the automotive industry alone, where significant improvements in corrosion control have been made. Finding. Management, especially of small to medium-sized companies, often depends on vendors to supply materials specifications for corrosion control. Large companies may have the luxury of having staff members who spend at least some their time dealing with corrosion issues. However, small to medium- sized companies generally do not have trained, or even trainable, engineers who are equipped to deal with simple corrosion-related tasks such as materials selection, periodic inspection, appropriate inspection, maintenance of corrosion protection programs, or even a general knowledge of materials/environment compatibility.  The Corrosion Costs report notes that in the late 1970s, automobile manufacturers started to increase the corrosion resistance of vehicles by using corrosion-resistant materials, employing ­better manufacturing processes, and by designing more corrosion-resistant vehicles through corrosion engineering knowledge. Because of the steps taken by the manufacturers, today’s automobiles have very little visible corrosion, and most vehicles fail mechanically before they wear out structurally. However, the total annual cost incurred is high, and much can be done to further reduce the cost. The total cost of corrosion to owners of motor vehicles is estimated at $23.4 billion per year.

78 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n BOX 3-1 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Designers should use the process of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to identify the mode of failure in every component in a system. A failure is the inability of a system to meet a customer’s requirement as opposed to actual material breakage or failure. The FMEA method- ology predicts what failures could occur, predicts the effect of the failure on the functioning of the system, and identifies the methods that should be used to prevent the failure. For corrosion to be adequately included in the FMEA, designers need to know more about the mechanisms of corrosion failure than they currently do. Accordingly, where corrosion-knowledgeable staff are not available or affordable, vendor information is often used for making decisions about new or replacement manufacturing equipment. Consultants are sometimes brought in, but more often to diagnose failures than to participate in the design. Finding. The supply of materials engineers and corrosion engineers is grow- ing tighter. Some of the panelists perceived that engineering staffs, in general, are being reduced. Notwithstanding the accuracy of this perception, in recent years a con- stant (or possibly somewhat declining) number of materials engineers have been produced by American universities (Table 3-2 and Figure 3-5). Given that corro- sion courses in the universities are often taught by faculty who are near retirement or already retired and that there seems to be little appetite for replacing them, the supply of materials engineers with knowledge of corrosion is likely to decrease further. Faculty who are replaced will be replaced by faculty who will be expected to perform functions other than teach corrosion. To reiterate, there are too few engineers with solid training in corrosion s ­ cience, technology, and control processes entering the job market. In many if not most cases, companies are training engineers from other disciplines to address specific corrosion problems. These engineers may lack a comprehensive under- standing or a knowledge of the things that can be done to address the source of corrosion-related failures or may not be able to recommend materials and practices that will prevent future failures. Professionals trained in or cognizant of corrosion processes at elevated temperatures are almost nonexistent, and only one major university in the United States has an active research program in high- temperature corrosion. CONCLUSION 6. DOD’s recent proactive stance on corrosion control will be undermined by the shortage of engineers and technologists with sufficient corrosion engineering education.

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 79 TABLE 3-2  Materials and Metallurgical Engineering Degrees Awarded in the United States, by Degree Level and Gender of Recipient, 1966-2004 Bachelor’s   Master’s   Doctorate  Academic Year Ending   Total Men Women   Total Men Women   Total Men Women 1966   792 785 7   400 397 3   211 209 2 1967   836 828 8   444 443 1   267 266 1 1968   881 863 18   460 458 2   215 213 2 1969   952 942 10   441 435 6   280 279 1 1970   977 967 10   429 423 6   303 302 1 1971   916 903 13   480 472 8   306 305 1 1972   909 893 16   524 513 11   294 291 3 1973   885 870 15   582 569 13   299 292 7 1974   821 789 32   521 508 13   280 277 3 1975   711 676 35   500 483 17   272 267 5 1976   704 661 43   475 447 28   252 244 8 1977   738 679 59   504 481 23   248 238 10 1978   835 728 107   506 468 38   247 242 5 1979   1,045 862 183   529 475 54   236 228 8 1980   1,303 1,076 227   598 539 59   273 259 14 1981   1,434 1,164 270   666 587 79   234 217 17 1982   1,696 1,372 324   632 560 72   255 238 17 1983   1,392 1,104 288   672 567 105   268 238 30 1984   1,355 1,033 322   726 605 121   271 245 26 1985   1,276 990 286   713 600 113   303 271 32 1986   1,259 924 335   810 673 137   305 281 24 1987   1,152 854 298   765 600 165   392 347 45 1988   1,211 891 320   749 597 152   374 341 33 1989   1,114 853 261   815 634 181   380 335 45 1990   1,166 895 271   802 650 152   440 391 49 1991   1,166 912 254   787 607 180   489 412 77 1992   1,091 846 245   796 653 143   485 416 61 1993   1,216 956 260   849 682 167   535 449 78 1994   1,106 866 240   910 723 187   539 452 83 1995   1,046 799 247   852 668 184   588 489 95 1996   1,004 781 223   774 599 175   574 483 84 1997   1,063 804 259   724 550 174   582 470 106 1998   1,007 772 235   698 528 170   565 477 84 1999     NA   NA NA   NA NA NA   469 376 88 2000   972 704 268   759 558 201   451 367 83 2001   930 667 263   709 536 173   497 392 105 2002   933 648 285   630 459 171   396 315 80 2003   950 674 276   720 537 183   474 373 101 2004   865 595 270   800 601 199   509 419 90 NOTE: NA, not available. Detailed national data were not released by the National Center for Education Statistics for the academic year ending in 1999. Some numbers may not sum to total because informa- tion on the gender of some recipients was missing. SOURCE: Data from the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Science and Engineering Indicators. Avail- able at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/pdf/tab53.pdf.

80 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n 1,800 Bachelor's Total 1,600 Master’s Total Doctorate Total 1,400 Number of Degrees 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2000 2003 1996 1984 1990 1969 1993 1987 1981 1972 1978 1975 1966 Year FIGURE 3-5  Materials and metallurgical engineering degrees awarded in the United States, by degree Figure 3-5.eps level. Data from NSF Science and Engineering Indicators. CONCLUSION 7. Industry compensates for the inadequate corrosion engi- neering education of practicing engineers through on-the-job training and short courses. These skills- and knowledge-based, continuing-education approaches are widely accepted as useful and they play an important role, depending on the job function and desired outcomes. However, continuing education of the workforce is not a substitute for including corrosion in the curricula for graduating engineers and technologists. CONCLUSION 8. The current university-based and on-the-job training approach to corrosion education does not allow the country to continue to reduce substantially the national cost of corrosion or to improve the safety and reliability of the national infrastructure. The corrosion engineering education system needs to be revitalized through (1) a series of shorter-term tactical actions by educators, government, industry, and the broader technical com- munity and (2) longer-term strategic actions by the federal government and the corrosion research community.

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 81 Recommendations for a path forward Action is needed to improve the corrosion education of graduating and prac­ ticing engineers in the United States. Corrosion needs to be included in bachelor’s- level design courses that are taught in the major engineering disciplines. Short courses and in-house training by corrosion experts have a role to play in increasing the number of corrosion-knowledgeable engineers, and savings will accrue when they apply their newfound knowledge, but these approaches have their limitations and are not an answer to inadequate education at universities that award profes- sional degrees. It is clear to the committee that students in general are not attracted to c ­ orrosion—not only because of the often negative connotations associated with the discipline but also because the jobs associated with corrosion are typically thought of as being jobs in basic industry. Corrosion is not thought to be relevant to or competitive with attractive fields such as nanotechnology, biomedical engineering, or jobs that tackle the energy crisis. While the committee can envision that new approaches to distance learning might improve the state of corrosion education, it acknowledges that institutional barriers to distance learning will make it difficult in the near term. Also, linking cor- rosion to other electrochemical technologies or courses could enhance the ­status of corrosion and help to get it incorporated into existing curricula. Corrosion courses could be taught by experts in related areas such as electrochemistry. The committee’s tactical recommendations have several themes. One is that the corrosion education system depends on a substantial corps of corrosion ­teachers, which in turn depends on the health of the corrosion research community. A vibrant corrosion research community provides teachers for corrosion classes and a research environment in which corrosion students at all levels can gain experi- ence. The corrosion teachers themselves will need to rely on the development of educational modules, case studies, and capstone courses, as well as on support for their own training and education. Opportunities to gain work experience and to add to their knowledge in the government and industrial sectors is an important common theme. Another is the need for government and industry to identify and make known, on an ongoing basis, their corrosion skills requirements, thereby enabling the identification and updating of learning outcomes—that is, the skills a student is expected to have at graduation—for new educational programs (illus- trative learning outcomes for some corrosion engineering courses are shown in Appendix F).   capstone course is a course offered in the final semester of a student’s major. It ties together the A key topics that faculty expect the student to have learned during the major, interdisciplinary program, or interdepartmental major.

82 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n Strategic Recommendations During the course of the study the committee became convinced that two compelling challenges remained outstanding: one for the federal government, in particular DOD, and one for the corrosion community itself. The first strategic recommendation is addressed to DOD, and specifically to its Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office. The committee is convinced that improv- ing the education of the corrosion workforce, broadly defined, will hinge on the government’s development of a strategic plan for fostering corrosion education with a well-defined vision and mission. An essential element of the plan will be how government can provide incentives to the educational sector to expand and revitalize corrosion engineering education. This plan will require input from a broad set of stakeholders and analysis and support from the government, industry, and academia. Strategic Recommendation to the Government The DOD’s Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, whose congres- sionally mandated role is to interact directly with the corrosion prevention industry, trade associations, other government corrosion-­prevention agen- cies, academic research and educational institutions, and scientific orga- nizations engaged in corrosion prevention, should (1) set up a corrosion education and research council composed of government agencies, industry, and academia to develop a continuing strategic plan for fostering corrosion education and (2) identify resources for executing the plan. The plan should have the following vision and mission: • Vision. A knowledge of the environmental degradation of all materials is integrated into the education of engineers. • Mission. To provide guidance and resources that will enable educational establishments to achieve the vision. The challenge to the corrosion community is based on the committee’s obser- vation that the community appears isolated from the larger scientific and engi- neering community. Repeatedly the committee heard that the general research and engineering community considers that corrosion science and engineering is a mature field, implying that there is little compelling science to be done. The com- mittee heard from those who have studied corrosion for many years how many compelling science questions remain unanswered and how great the promise is for advancing corrosion mitigation and prevention if those questions can be answered.

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 83 Even small changes in environment and materials can adversely affect corrosion resistance and result in catastrophic degradation. The committee is convinced that the responsibility for rectifying this faulty per- ception falls to the corrosion community itself. The education of a ­corrosion-savvy workforce is, broadly speaking, dependent on the health of the corrosion commu- nity, so the committee’s second recommendation is addressed to that community. Strategic Recommendation to the Corrosion Community To build an understanding of the continuing need for corrosion engineer- ing education, the corrosion research community should engage the larger science and engineering community and communicate the challenges and accomplishments of the field. To achieve this goal the corrosion research community should identify and publish the opportunities and priorities in corrosion research and link them to engineering grand challenges faced by the nation. To show how the field of corrosion could meet these challenges, the corrosion research community should reach out to its peers by speaking at conferences outside the field, publishing in a broad range of journals, and writing review articles for broad dissemination. Tactical Recommendations The committee presents its tactical recommendations in three ways: (1) by stakeholder—first, government, industry, and professional societies and, second, the university and education sector, (2) in the form of a summary matrix, and (3) by educational goal—namely, strategies for improving the education of identified segments of the engineering workforce. By Stakeholder To the Government, Industry, and Professional Societies • Industry and government agencies, such as DOD, the Army Corps of Engi- neers, the Federal Highway Administration, state departments of transpor- tation, DOT, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, should strengthen the provision of corrosion courses and support the promulgation of corrosion- related learning outcomes by disseminating skills sets for corrosion technol- ogists and engineers. The skills sets should be tied to actual case histories. Such an ongoing effort would enable the setting and periodic updating of learning outcomes for corrosion courses.

84 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n • Industry and federal government agencies, such as DOD’s Office of Corro- sion Policy and Oversight, the NSF, and the Department of Energy (DOE), should help develop a foundational corps of corrosion faculty by supporting research and development in the field of corrosion science and engineering. Such support could include the establishment of centers of expertise at key universities or in consortia of universities. • Industry and federal government agencies, such as DOD’s Office of Cor- rosion Policy and Oversight, should give universities incentives, such as endowed chairs in corrosion control, to promote their hiring of corrosion experts. The new DOD Faculty Fellowship follows this model. • The DOD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight and NSF should sup- port faculty development by facilitating their participation in research internships, short courses, and conferences. • Industry and government agencies should partner with MSE and engi- neering departments to offer corrosion-related internships and sabbatical opportunities for students and faculty, respectively. • Industry and federal government agencies, such as DOD, NSF, and DOE, should support graduate fellowships in corrosion engineering. As part of this effort, the DOD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight should estab- lish a research support program equivalent to NSF educational experience programs, whereby a block grant awarded to an MSE or engineering depart- ment would fund some graduate students in the corrosion subspecialty. • Federal government agencies, such as DOD’s Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight and DOE, should fund cooperative programs between uni- versity engineering and MSE departments and government laboratories to facilitate the graduate student research experience. • Professional societies, such as NACE International and TMS, and g ­ overnment-supported materials research centers, such as NSF’s ­Materials Research Science and Engineering Research Centers, should develop and provide materials for MSE and engineering departments that do not offer courses on corrosion engineering or do not have instructors with the relevant expertise. These educational modules would help nonexperts to deliver effective corrosion education. Such modules should be geared toward different areas of engineering—for example, biomedical, chemical, civil, mechanical, nuclear, and electrical engineering—and should include Web-based classes, problems, and case studies. • Federal government agencies, such as DOD’s Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight and NSF, should fund the development of educational modules, including case studies and capstone courses, for use at community colleges and by university MSE and other engineering departments. • Industry and government agencies should increase support for their engi-

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 85 neers to participate in short courses when specific skills shortages are iden- tified and need to be remedied in a short time. These efforts will improve the knowledge and awareness of corrosion control on the part of practicing engineers and minimize their need for on-the-job training. • The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, with appropriate input from the professional societies, should tighten the requirement for corrosion in exams to certify professional engineers. To the University and Education Sector • Engineering departments in universities should incorporate electives and course work on corrosion into all engineering curricula. Improving the overall awareness of corrosion control will require that more engineers have basic exposure to corrosion, at least enough to “know what they don’t know.” • MSE departments in the universities should set required learning outcomes for corrosion into their curricula. All MSE undergraduate students should be required to take a course in corrosion control so as to improve the cor- rosion knowledge of graduating materials engineers. • Community colleges should add learning outcomes courses on corrosion engineering at the associate’s level to provide technologists with a more specialized (industry- or application-specific) knowledge of corrosion. • MSE and engineering departments at universities should provide continu- ing education in corrosion for practicing engineers. • MSE and engineering departments in universities should provide the faculty to teach corrosion. To identify faculty with the appropriate expertise when no corrosion experts are on staff, departments should consider faculty who are expert in areas such as batteries and fuel cells, surface science, condensed matter physics, nanotechnology, and electro­deposition. The departments should also support participation in faculty development programs aimed at increasing the teaching capacity in corrosion. • MSE departments at universities offering a required course in corrosion should ensure that they can continue to teach corrosion by hiring new faculty to replace retiring faculty who are experts in corrosion. • MSE and engineering departments should partner with industry to create industry-guided capstone design courses for undergraduate engineers. In Matrix Format The tactical recommendations have just been listed by stakeholder or actor. Table 3-3 summarizes them in another way, as a matrix of recommended actions.

86 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n TABLE 3-3  Matrix of Recommended Actions Faculty Curricula and Development Pedagogy Industry Should provide incentives Should partner with universities to to the universities, such as create industry-guided capstone endowed chairs in corrosion design for corrosion courses for control, to promote their hiring undergraduate engineering students. of corrosion experts. Should strengthen the provision of Should partner with corrosion courses by disseminating universities to offer corrosion- skills sets for corrosion technologists related sabbatical opportunities and engineers. for faculty. Should partner with universities to offer corrosion-related internships for students. Federal Should provide incentives Should strengthen the provision of government to the universities, such as corrosion courses by publishing and endowed chairs in corrosion publicizing skills sets for corrosion control, to promote their hiring technologists and engineers. of corrosion experts. Government-supported research Should support faculty centers, such as those funded by development, including DOE and NSF, should develop and participation in research provide materials for MSE and internships, short courses, and engineering departments that do conferences. not offer courses on corrosion engineering or do not have instructors with relevant expertise.

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 87 Teaching and Research and Student Support Development Workforce Development Should support graduate Should help develop a Should increase support for the student fellowships in foundational corps of participation of their engineers in short corrosion engineering. corrosion faculty by courses. supporting research and development in the field of corrosion science and engineering. Should support graduate Should help develop a Should increase support for the student fellowships in foundational corps of participation of their engineers in short corrosion engineering by corrosion faculty by courses. establishing block grants to supporting research and fund a number of graduate development in the field students in the corrosion of corrosion science and subspecialty. engineering. Should fund cooperative programs between universities and government laboratories to facilitate the graduate student research experience. Should fund the development of educational modules—including case studies and capstone courses—for use by faculty at community colleges and university. continues

88 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n TABLE 3-3  Continued Faculty Curricula and Development Pedagogy University MSE Should support participation in Should adopt required learning departments faculty development programs outcomes for corrosion in aimed at increasing the undergraduate curricula. teaching capacity in corrosion. Should require all MSE Should ensure adequate undergraduate students to take a faculty and educational course in corrosion control. facilities are available to teach future corrosion experts by hiring new faculty and Should partner with industry to replacing retiring faculty who create industry-guided capstone are experts in corrosion. design for corrosion courses for undergraduate engineering students. University Should adopt elective learning engineering outcomes for corrosion in departments undergraduate curricula. Engineering departments should incorporate a corrosion course into all engineering curricula as an elective. Should partner with industry to create industry-guided capstone design for corrosion courses for undergraduate engineering students. Professional Professional societies should develop societies and provide materials for MSE and engineering departments that currently do not include courses on corrosion engineering or do not have instructors with relevant expertise. Community Should adopt learning outcomes on college corrosion in curricula for associates. Should add courses on corrosion engineering at the associates-degree level to provide technologists with better specialized (industry- or application-specific) corrosion knowledge.

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 89 Teaching and Research and Student Support Development Workforce Development Should provide corrosion continuing education courses for practicing engineers. Should provide the faculty Should provide corrosion continuing to teach corrosion. To education courses for practicing identify faculty with the engineers. expertise to provide corrosion instruction when no corrosion experts are on staff, departments should consider faculty who are expert in areas such as batteries and fuel cells, surface science, condensed matter physics, nanotechnology, and electrodeposition. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, with appropriate input from the professional societies, should tighten the requirement for corrosion in the relevant exams to certify professional engineers.

90 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n By Educational Goal The committee also has broken down its tactical recommendations and looked at them yet another way—namely, as strategies for improving the education of (1) technologists, (2) non-MSE bachelor’s-level engineering graduates, (3) MSE bachelor’s-level graduates, (4) practicing engineers with bachelor’s degrees, and (5) master’s-level or Ph.D. students. Each strategy identifies actors, actions, and goals as appropriate. Technologists To provide technologists with better specialized (industry- or application- s ­ pecific) knowledge, • Community colleges should add courses on corrosion engineering at the associates degree level. • Industry and government agencies, such as DOD, the Army Corps of Engi- neers, and the Bureau of Reclamation, should help to increase the avail- ability of such courses by disseminating the skills sets needed by corrosion technologists. The skills sets should be tied to actual case histories. Such an ongoing effort would enable the setting and periodic updating of learning outcomes for such technologists. • Industry should support corrosion technology programs at community colleges by providing internship opportunities. • The federal government should fund the development of corrosion control educational modules for use by faculty at community colleges. • Professional societies should provide corrosion technical courses and cer- tification support. Non-MSE, Bachelor’s-Level Engineering Graduates To improve the overall awareness of corrosion control among all graduating engineers, so that all engineers have a basic exposure to corrosion, enough to “know what they don’t know,” • Engineering departments in universities should incorporate a corrosion course into all engineering curricula as an elective. • Industry and government agencies, such as DOD, the Army Corps of Engi- neers, and the Bureau of Reclamation, should help to increase the avail- ability of such courses by disseminating skills sets for non-MSE engineers. The skills sets should be tied to actual case histories. Such an ongoing effort

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 91 would enable the setting and periodic updating of learning outcomes for corrosion-aware engineers. • The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, with appropriate input from the professional societies, should tighten the require- ment for corrosion in exams to certify professional engineers. • Industry and government should partner with university programs to offer corrosion-related internships and sabbatical opportunities for students and faculty, respectively. • DOD and the NSF should provide financial support to university faculty who wish to attend short or summer courses to improve their ability to teach corrosion. • Universities should offer and support their staff ’s participation in faculty development programs aimed at increasing the capacity to teach corrosion in their engineering departments. • Professional societies, such as NACE International and TMS, and g ­ overnment-supported materials research centers, such as NSF’s Materi- als Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs), should provide supplementary course material for engineering curricula that currently do not cover corrosion and for engineering departments that do not have instructors with relevant expertise, by developing educational modules to assist nonexperts in delivering effective corrosion education. Such modules should be geared to different areas of engineering—for example, biomedi- cal, chemical, civil, mechanical, nuclear, and electrical engineering—and should include Web-based classes, problems, and case studies. • DOD and NSF should support the strengthening of corrosion engineer- ing education in engineering departments by funding the development of educational modules, case studies, and capstone courses. • Engineering departments in universities should also supply the faculty to teach corrosion. To identify faculty with the expertise to do that, pro- grams should consider faculty who are expert in areas such as batteries and fuel cells, surface science, condensed matter physics, nanotechnology, and electrodeposition. MSE Bachelor’s-Level Graduates To improve the corrosion knowledge of graduating materials engineers, • MSE departments in the universities should require all MSE students to take a course in corrosion control. • Industry and government agencies, such as DOD, the Army Corps of Engi- neers, and the Bureau of Reclamation, should help to increase the avail-

92 Assessment of C o r ro s i o n E d u c at i o n ability of such courses by publishing skills sets for MSE engineers. The skills sets should be tied to actual case histories. Such an ongoing effort would enable the setting and periodic updating of learning outcomes for c ­ orrosion-knowledgeable materials engineers. • Industry should partner with MSE departments to create industry-guided capstone design courses. • DOD and the NSF should support the strengthening of education in cor- rosion for materials engineers by funding faculty development, the devel- opment and provision of teaching materials, and supporting fellowships. Faculty development should include participation in research internships, short courses, and conferences. • Professional societies, such as NACE International and TMS, and govern- ment-supported materials research centers, such as NSF’s MRSECs, should develop and provide materials for MSE curricula that currently do not cover corrosion engineering and for MSE departments that do not have instructors with relevant expertise. These educational modules would assist nonexperts in delivering effective corrosion education to MSE students. • MSE departments in universities should also provide the faculty to teach corrosion. To identify faculty with the expertise to provide corrosion instruction, programs should look for faculty who are expert in areas such as batteries and fuel cells, surface science, condensed matter physics, nano- technology, and electrodeposition. • Industry and government should partner with university programs through corrosion-related internships and sabbatical opportunities for students and faculty, respectively. Practicing Engineers with Bachelor’s Degrees To improve the knowledge and awareness of corrosion control among prac­ ticing engineers and to minimize their need for on-the-job training, • MSE departments at universities and technical professional societies, such as NACE and TMS, should provide corrosion courses for working professionals. • Industry and government agencies, such as DOD, the Army Corps of Engi- neers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and others, should help to increase the availability of such courses by publishing descriptions of corrosion-related skills needed by the engineers in their workforce. The skills sets should be tied to actual case histories. Such an ongoing effort would enable the setting and periodic updating of learning outcomes for targeted short courses. • Industry and government should support the participation of their engi-

C o n c lu s i o n s and a R e c o m m e n d e d P at h F o r wa r d 93 neers in short courses when specific skills shortages are identified and must be filled in the short term. Graduate Engineering Students To increase the availability of corrosion expertise, • MSE and engineering departments at universities should ensure that a ­ dequate faculty and educational facilities are available to teach future corrosion experts by hiring new faculty to replace retiring faculty who are experts in corrosion. • Industry and federal government agencies, such as DOD, NSF, and DOE, should help develop a foundational corps of corrosion faculty by support- ing research and development in corrosion science and engineering. Such support should include graduate fellowships and could include the devel- opment of Centers of Expertise (COEs) at key universities or in consortia of universities. • Federal government agencies, such as DOD and DOE, should fund coopera- tive programs between universities and government laboratories to facili- tate graduate student experience. • Industry and the federal government agencies, such as DOD’s Office of Corrosion Control, should provide incentives to the universities, such as endowed chairs, to promote their hiring of corrosion experts. The new DOD Faculty Fellowship follows this model. • The DOD Office of Corrosion Control should establish a research support program equivalent to an NSF educational experience, whereby a block grant is awarded to fund a number of graduate students in the corrosion subspecialty at a university.

Next: Appendix A: Two Earlier Reports »
Assessment of Corrosion Education Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $52.00 Buy Ebook | $41.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The threat from the degradation of materials in the engineered products that drive our economy, keep our citizenry healthy, and keep us safe from terrorism and belligerent threats has been well documented over the years. And yet little effort appears to have been made to apply the nation's engineering community to developing a better understanding of corrosion and the mitigation of its effects.

The engineering workforce must have a solid understanding of the physical and chemical bases of corrosion, as well as an understanding of the engineering issues surrounding corrosion and corrosion abatement. Nonetheless, corrosion engineering is not a required course in the curriculum of most bachelor degree programs in MSE and related engineering fields, and in many programs, the subject is not even available. As a result, most bachelor-level graduates of materials- and design-related programs have an inadequate background in corrosion engineering principles and practices.

To combat this problem, the book makes a number of short- and long-term recommendations to industry and government agencies, educational institutions, and communities to increase education and awareness, and ultimately give the incoming workforce the knowledge they need.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!