National Academies Press: OpenBook

Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials (1995)

Chapter: CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY

« Previous: CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO SENSORS
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×

2
INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY

The Committee on New Sensor Technologies: Materials and Applications, as noted in Chapter 1, was asked to identify novel sensor materials that could benefit the manufacture and operation of advanced systems and to identify R&D efforts that could accelerate the development and incorporation of emerging sensor technology in particular applications. In identifying such R&D opportunities for new sensor materials, the committee concluded that the critical technical issue in sensor technology is satisfying the functional requirements of the application. The diversity of sensor technologies and applications and the resulting diversity of materials needs lead the committee to conclude that the concept of an "ideal" sensor material is inadvisable. It is frequently possible to fulfill a given sensing need with more than one type of sensor. Thus, identification of the "best" sensor material can only be done within the context of a specific application. Furthermore, judgments regarding the critical importance of particular materials will quickly become outdated as sensor technology and materials research advance. Therefore, the committee focused its effort on developing a conceptual framework that relates sensor materials to sensor applications and can be used to examine a wide range of application needs against technological capabilities.

The committee believes that this framework approach will not be quickly outmoded. It can be used to aid analysis and to foster communication between sensor users and sensor technologists and thus facilitate identification of R&D opportunities and strategies. In preparing its report, the committee used the framework to explore sensor applications relevant to its task and important classes of sensor materials. Illustrative R&D opportunities for sensor materials or sensor technologies that emerged from these explorations are derived in each chapter and collected in summary form in Chapter 7. More general conclusions and recommendations that emerged from developing the framework and the overall exercise of applying it are presented in Chapter 8.

SENSOR TECHNOLOGY DRIVERS

U.S. industry is experiencing shorter innovation cycles, growing technical complexity of its products, and increased costs in conducting and commercializing R&D. These trends have important implications for sensor development. Weyrich (1993) observed that material developments tailored to specific targeted applications ("market pull") are increasingly dominating basic innovation ("technology push") developments. The committee concurs with this observation; current sensor R&D is primarily application-driven rather than technology-driven. However, the "market pull" and "technology push" drivers for sensor development are interdependent and can constructively complement each other. For example, a new material that creates markets by means of a new application triggers the demand for further materials enhancements. Conversely, mass production can lead

Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×

to reduced manufacturing costs and, via a learning curve, to improved materials technology, thereby facilitating further materials development.

The interdependence of "market push" and "technology pull" developments is illustrated by the example of silicon semiconductor sensors. Mass market applications such as smoke detectors, automotive exhaust sensors, and personal blood sugar and cholesterol monitors are driving the development of integrated silicon-based systems incorporating sensing and data processing functions that are low-cost, lightweight, and user-friendly. The increased availability of low-cost personal monitors will likely lead to increased demand for chemical microsensors, such as carbon monoxide sensors that provide warning of accidental poisoning in vehicles and homes.

The committee identified three primary market drivers for the development of new or improved sensors and related materials:1

  1. economic, such as end user demand for a product with a competitive advantage (for example: better, faster, cheaper);

  2. regulatory, such as user demand spurred by a government-mandated requirement (for example: environmental and safety monitors, automotive emissions control);

  3. unique government requirements, typified by Department of Defense or Department of Energy needs in energy, the environment, and defense, or National Aeronautics and Space Administration needs for space exploration and advanced civil aircraft.

Based on production volume, current sensor production can be divided into two general categories. High volume, low-cost sensors produced for mass markets (such as automotive exhaust sensors and smoke detectors) can be distinguished from low-volume, high-cost items produced for specialized niche market applications (such as intelligent processing of materials and vibration damping of space structures).

The nature and scope of R&D programs in sensor technologies, including sensor materials, are largely determined by the market drivers mentioned above plus the potential size of the total available market. In the case of sensors for mass market applications, clearly defined R&D strategies have frequently been identified and implemented. For example, current materials research is addressing some of the shortcomings in the oxygen sensor used in the exhaust systems of modern automobiles (Hughes et al., 1991).2

In contrast, evidence from a number of case histories considered by the committee indicates that the selection and development of materials for niche market applications oftentimes did not originate from a logical, top-down strategy but rather from a timely combination of technical, commercial, and government considerations, including availability of, and constraints on, federal grants and support for small businesses. Such innovative developments have historically led to major breakthroughs in "pathfinding" applications and have served as a means to gain much needed operational experience with a new technology. For example, extremely sensitive chemical sensors 3 are the result, in part, of a confluence of scientific discovery, as described below.

  • In the course of research on sputter deposited ZnO on a silicon subtrate to make surface acoustic wave devices, researchers observed that they had difficulty keeping the resonant frequency constant during the humid summer months. A researcher recognized that changes in the humidity level in the laboratory were inducing the frequency changes. This led to the development of an improved humidity sensor.

  • Early quartz crystal micro-balances were used to measure the thickness of sputter-deposited films. Researchers developed the idea of using quartz crystal balances for chemical sensing as well as the idea of using a coating to selectively absorb mass. These efforts have led to extremely sensitive chemical sensors that are based on porous coatings, such as ZnO. Such sensors that can detect water vapors at a concentration of 1 ppb will be a very important technology for future integrated circuit manufacture.

Clearly, there are exceptions to this generalization of development approaches for niche market applications, particularly in the case of strategic

Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×

defense-related applications for which precise, application-specific technical requirements can be defined and for which market factors are of secondary importance.4

Currently, most sensors for high-volume applications are manufactured by large companies, whereas niche market opportunities are primarily exploited by small companies (UNIDO, 1989). The development of certain sensor-related technologies may also be limited to large organizations capable of sustaining a substantial R&D investment. For example, the high costs of producing silicon sensor prototypes result in only large companies being able to start new sensor projects that require innovative silicon fabrication technology. However, this situation may be changing as mechanisms are established that provide industry access to expensive, highly capable research facilities. Indicative of this trend, many universities are forming liaisons with industry, and federal laboratories are being encouraged by legislation to negotiate Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with industry. Such mechanisms could be of particular benefit to small innovative companies during the R&D phase.

However, small manufacturing companies generally do not have facilities to mass-produce integrated circuits (ICs) and thus tend to concentrate on low-volume specialty products. This niche focus can be viewed either as a commercial opportunity or as a problem. The huge variety of available sensing principles allows the niche market approach to be successful in many cases (UNIDO, 1989), but it may be difficult for a single company to show an acceptable return on investment in sensor R&D when the available market is small and fragmented (NRC, 1989). In any case, the existence of a large number of small companies, each committed to the development of a somewhat different type of sensor, can challenge the sensor practitioner attempting to make a choice between several candidate sensor systems for a given application.

TRENDS IN SENSOR DEVELOPMENT

Following a review of recent developments in sensors and sensing materials, the committee made several observations that provide the basis for suggesting a strategy for sensors R&D, in particular for identifying development opportunities in sensing materials.

Current sensor development is trending toward increased technical complexity in sensor systems. As noted above, growing technical complexity requires adaptability in the approach to materials R&D. This observation is particularly pertinent to the development of increasingly complex and sophisticated sensor systems, such as smart sensors that incorporate dedicated, on-chip signal processing. The committee concurs with the observation that the physics, technology, and mathematical aspects of smart sensor systems are so interwoven that "there is a need for a well-focused, well-directed, concentrated research program to devise widely applicable, accurate, and relatively inexpensive smart sensor systems" (UNIDO, 1989). This reinforces the need for an interdisciplinary strategy for identifying needs and developing sensor technologies. Thus the materials community must be able to work as full partners within the multidisciplinary team.

The principal technical drivers for sensor development may come from enabling/supporting technologies other than materials technology. Most recent advances in sensors have come not from the synthesis of new transduction materials (except perhaps for chemical sensors) but from innovations in low-cost, large-scale manufacturing of interconnections, microelectronics, and micromachining that have allowed more-complex sensor systems to be formed incorporating well-known sensor materials. Mallon (1993) observes that "the revolution in electronics … is reinventing the sensor industry and how it serves its customers." Some of the technical advances that have led to the rapid growth of electronics are materials-and processing-related; for example, micro-machining. However, many significant technical drivers for sensor development are not in the field of materials science and engineering, and there is a need to relate sensor development to advances in diverse technical fields.

It is sometimes possible to advance the state of the art in sensing technology by leveraging materials developed for non-sensing applications. A notable recent materials-related sensor development is the use of fiberoptic sensors for chemical, mechanical, and biological applications. Optical fiber development

Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×

has been supported by the communications industry, since it offers the capability of high data rates and multichannel operation at speeds several orders of magnitude higher than that possible with copper cable. Needed improvements in purifying and doping techniques for silica glass began as a materials development effort, with the goal of reducing light loss in the fiber, but rapidly evolved into a processing issue in the quest for consistently long fibers with low optical loss. The cost per meter fell rapidly as usage increased, and the advantages of small size and weight, low power, and extremely low sensitivity to electromagnetic fields were attractive to the sensor community. As a result, by the middle 1980s, an average of one new fiberoptic sensor application per week was being submitted for patent protection.

Sensor technologists obtained significant benefit by leveraging fiberoptic materials developed for non-sensing applications. A new set of material development needs was subsequently defined, based purely on the perceived sensor attributes rather than on the original communications requirements. In particular, the ability to bring high-power optical energy to the measurement site within a narrow bandwidth and coherency generated a need for fibers with controlled refractive indices, polarization-maintanence, and temperature stability.

The example of optical fibers illustrates that leveraging and exploiting materials developed for purposes other than sensing can lead to sophisticated sensor technologies. The overall cost (and risk) of such development would be significantly less than that of developing new compositions of matter.

Experience in establishing centers of excellence for sensor development provides useful guidelines for the development of a revised sensor R&D strategy. Four common characteristics can be identified in the sensors R&D conducted at several major centers for sensor technology:

  1. A multidisciplinary approach is adopted, with emphasis on teamwork. Those centers located at universities also expose students to a multidisciplinary environment which enhances their educational experience.

  2. Capabilities exist to develop sensors from an initial research concept through engineering prototypes to fielded systems (vertical integration). Laboratories possessing such a broad research base can readily address the root cause of problems and issues that arise during development. They would be limited in effectiveness if they participated in only a portion of the development process.

  3. Efforts are focused on selected sensor technologies for a broadly defined range of applications in line with the core competencies of the organization. No attempt is made to cover the entire field of sensor technology and the associated diversity of sensor materials. These organizations have access to expertise from the many technical disciplines involved in sensor technology.

  4. Strong linkage to industry is actively encouraged and pursued. Contact with industrial and end users aids these institutions in insuring the general relevance of their research areas. Since industry's needs oftentimes tend to be very specific and narrowly defined, these centers specialize in transferring general knowledge that can subsequently be applied to solve specific problems.

Universities play a critical role in conducting frontier research.  Frontier research can be defined as leading edge research that does not have a particular application in mind, or does not expect to be commercialized within the foreseeable future (e.g., within 10 years). While industrial research centers are having increasing difficulty in justifying such research, universities are well positioned to conduct frontier research and to use these programs as vehicles to educate students.

In the view of the committee, focused programs in which sensors are treated as a separate field of endeavor, as opposed to an adjunct to larger programs, will contribute significantly toward accelerating the development and use of advanced sensors.

PLANNING SENSOR TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

Current interest in initiating R&D programs directed specifically toward sensor development results from potentially high economic and technological benefits from incorporating improved sensors

Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×

for a number of applications. Several examples are presented in Part II (chapters 3 to 6) of this report.

In the experience of the committee, an R&D strategy that maintains an applications-focused research base is necessary to accelerate sensor development. The successful characteristics described above for the sensor centers of excellence should be emulated.

The need to improve the planning of sensors R&D derives from multiple factors:

  • interest in accelerating the product innovation cycle;

  • the increasing complexity of product technology; and

  • increased costs in conducting and commercializing R&D.

The fact that much sensor development has taken place as an adjunct to larger programs in areas such as materials processing, equipment maintenance, or control systems is due in large measure to the relative "newness" of the field compared to many of the other technical disciplines. 5

Due to their multidisciplinary nature, R&D programs in sensor materials frequently do not usually fit neatly into conventional areas of materials science and engineering (e.g., ceramic materials, metallurgy, nondestructive evaluation, etc.). As will be seen in Part II, sensor materials development draws on a wide variety of disciplines, such as solid-state physics, crystal growth, materials science, processing science, materials modeling, and device engineering. In many cases, highly specialized technical expertise is needed. For example, the use of organometallic vapor-phase epitaxy techniques to grow III-V semiconductor materials requires not only an understanding of physics, crystal growth, and processing issues but also an in-depth knowledge of the complex chemistry of organometallic precursors. Therefore, the materials research community must broaden its perspective in order to fully participate in sensor technology research.

The committee identified several different approaches to planning R&D for sensor materials. One is reactive planning, based on the assumption that the future needs will be incremental changes from past needs. At the other end of the spectrum is proactive planning which attempts to project a future that is not a linear extension of the past.

A third approach is one that is technology-driven, which strives to achieve optimum performance from technology, attempting to add practical application constraints only in the late stage of development. This approach contrasts with a fourth needs-driven approach that focuses planning on well-defined requirements and then exploits current technologies or researches new materials or materials physics that may have potential to meet the defined requirements.

Figure 2-1 is a two-dimensional grid depicting the intersection of these four strategies. From a practical viewpoint, most planning efforts encompass elements of each of these strategies, although certain styles usually predominate.

In the opinion of the committee, "market pull" (i.e., needs-driven) is likely to remain the dominant driver in planning future R&D in sensor materials, given the ever shorter innovation cycles and the importance of identifying high-payoff opportunities likely to yield a high return on investment. However, technology-driven leading-edge research should not be neglected, since its results have the potential to create entirely new markets over a period of time.

Reactive planning is frequently perceived as being lower risk than a proactive approach because

FIGURE 2-1    R&D strategy grid.

Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×

it is based on recent experience. However, history has shown that past experience is no guarantee of the future, and despite steady incremental enhancements based on a reactive approach to R&D planning, a technology may become obsolete as a result of new developments. Thus, vacuum tube manufacturers were unable to survive the transformation to transistors and integrated circuits. Under certain circumstances then, reactive planning carries a very high risk.

Proactive planning relies on estimating future needs and, as such, involves higher risk. For example, significant resources may be directed toward a project that will not be successful, notably if demand is reduced due to introduction of an alternative technology or if an attempt is made to rush an immature technology to production. Nonetheless, proactive planning can result in large improvements in capability. The likelihood of failure can be reduced by incorporating a realistic assessment of technical risk as part of the planning strategy.

IDENTIFICATION OF R&D OPPORTUNITIES

Some general goals for improving sensor performance and utility have been identified by the committee. These objectives, which form the basis for current research trends, include miniaturization, low power consumption, low cost, improved detection limits, high sensitivity and specificity, and utility at high temperature or in otherwise hostile environments. Diverse materials-related issues must be addressed to meet performance goals associated with these general trends. In the case of miniaturization, for example, improvement of optical sensors will require progress in semiconductor processing technology. In contrast, the development of a miniaturized mechanical sensor for strain measurement may require the use of advanced metallurgical techniques.

A Common Language

During the course of the committee's discussions of R&D opportunities in sensor materials, it became clear that the processing of advanced sensor technology has been limited by the lack of a well-accepted language for conveying sensor needs and performance requirements. In the experience of the committee, potential users of sensor technology often use different technical terms than those involved in researching and developing sensors. In response, the committee has suggested a set of descriptors that can characterize both sensor application requirements and sensor technology attributes, as schematically depicted in Figure 2-2.

A list of the principal descriptors is presented in Table 2-1. (Appendix B contains the definitions of each descriptor in terms that are nonspecific to a particular discipline.) In preparing this table the committee applied two main criteria. First, the descriptors were chosen to provide a comprehensive, though not necessarily exhaustive, means of describing required performance specifications and sensor attributes. Second, the descriptors were selected to allow unbiased evaluation of candidate sensor technologies, since the descriptors themselves should not a priori favor the selection of a particular sensor or technology.

Referring to Table 2-1, the first six descriptors (i.e., transduction, transduction mode, measurement scale, implementation, reliability, and acquisition mode) are discriminators based on a predefined list of key characteristics for each descriptor that help place the particular sensing task or sensor system within a series of well-defined groups. Each parameter listed as a characteristic is quantifiable to facilitate direct comparisons among different sensor technologies. Table 2-1 is also known as a "framework."

The last two descriptors (i.e., constraints and economic considerations) are more subjective than the other descriptors; some subcategories, such as development cost, may be difficult to quantify with a high degree of confidence. Nevertheless, "constraints" and "economic considerations" are often important considerations in determining the suitability of a sensor technology for a particular task. In some cases, these two descriptors may be of overriding importance in selecting cost-effective sensor technologies for an application.

Comparison of Requirements and Technology Attributes

A major advantage of using a common set of descriptors is that it facilitates the matching of sensing

Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×

FIGURE 2-2  Sensor communication tool for comparing application requirements and technologies.

Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×

TABLE 2-1  Key Sensor Descriptors

TRANSDUCTION

 

 

Self-Generating

 

Modulating

TRANSDUCTION MODE

 

 

Direct (with respect to Measured Parameter)

 

Indirect (Infers)

MEASUREMENT SCALE

 

 

Nano, Micro, Milli, Macro

IMPLEMENTATION

 

 

Scale

 

Single Point

 

Integrating

 

Array

 

Format

 

Integrated Signal Processing

 

Multi-Channel

 

Multiplexing

 

Mode

 

Noncontact vs. Contact

 

Remote

 

In Situ

 

Invasive vs. Noninvasive

 

Nondestructive vs. Destructive

RELIABILITY

 

 

Lifetime

 

Multiuse vs. Single

 

Calibration vs. Accuracy Drift

ACQUISITION MODE

 

 

Continuous vs. Discrete

 

Threshold/Peak

 

Integrating

CHARACTERISTICS

 

 

Response Time

 

Sensitivity

 

Resolution

 

Range

 

Linearity

 

Limit of Detection

 

Selectivity

 

Accuracy

 

Repeatability (Precision)

CONSTRAINTS

 

 

Packaging

 

Size

 

Weight

 

Hermeticity

 

Isolation

 

Thermal

 

Electromagnetic

 

Mechanics

 

Chemical

 

Optical

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

 

 

Development

 

Acquisition

 

Manufacturing

 

Life Cycle

requirements to the capabilities of existing sensor technologies as illustrated in Figure 2-2. Information about the particular sensor application is depicted on the left in terms of requirements, and information about a candidate sensor technology (technology attributes) for addressing that application is shown on the right. These branches reflect two of the general approaches to sensor technology R&D, namely, application-driven selection of a sensor technology and technology-driven advances in sensing capability.

In the application-driven use of this tool, the descriptor attributes are selected for the application of interest. Candidate technologies are then compared against this list to determine how well they "match"; that is, how closely they meet the requirements of the application. Such comparisons provide the basis for sensor selection and trade-off decisions (i.e., giving up an aspect of the requirement to gain something else). If there is a very good match, some evaluation of sensor performance may still be necessary to establish that the available technology meets the requirement. If the match did not provide sufficient performance for the application, the shortfalls may provide the basis for significant, focused research needs.6 The use of the descriptors in characterizing a sensing problem permits concurrent "top down" and "bottom up" approaches by the practitioner and sensor scientist and enhances the ability of both to make an informed assessment of the technical problems requiring investigation in order to meet a given sensor requirement.

In the technology-driven use of this tool, the descriptor attributes are selected based on the capabilities of the technology. The goal is to use this framework to identify application areas in which

Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×

the technology would be useful. Therefore, application needs can be compared against this list of technology attributes. The result of the match can guide further specialization of the sensor technology. This case is further discussed below.

In practice, the process of completing the framework and performing the match requires considerable technical expertise and judgment. For example, the identification of a particular sensor application and candidate sensor technologies will likely require significant interaction between the sensor users who understand the problem domain and the sensor technologists who know what the technology can provide. Not all the descriptors may be appropriate in every instance. Moreover, technological advances and new requirements may warrant adding descriptor terms and categories. Nonetheless, the committee believes that this concept of a common framework is an important basis and will remain useful.

R&D Needs

When a sensor technology need has been identified using the process described above, the nature of the R&D necessary to rectify this deficiency must be understood. Figure 2-2 envisages two principal areas for sensor technology R&D: materials and other enabling technologies. The former category is the subject of the present study. The latter category would include technologies required for the implementation of a given sensor material or system—for example, compact, lightweight cryogenic cooling systems or rugged computer hardware for harsh operating environments. Such developments were not considered in the current study, although they may depend on materials R&D.

The use of the descriptors in identifying and highlighting specific deficiencies in existing technologies provides useful information on which to base a preliminary evaluation of technical risk. The committee identified three broad categories of development risk:

  1. low risk, involving relatively minor modifications to existing sensor systems, with incremental expansion of the existing sensor performance envelope;

  2. low to medium risk, based on proven technical concepts. A typical example might involve the redesign of an existing sensor system to meet implementation constraints; and

  3. medium to high risk, requiring the investigation of new or unproven concepts. Long-term R&D on new concepts in materials, packaging, physics, and chemistry for sensing fall into this category.

The experience of committee members indicates that research leading to incremental improvements has an important role, particularly in the integration of sensor devices. Nonetheless, the most significant high-payoff research opportunities7 are likely to fall into the second and third risk categories described above.

Research opportunities in sensor materials are discussed in Part II. However, it must be emphasized that the purpose of the present report is not to provide a comprehensive list of research topics in sensor materials but rather to give representative examples, together with a rational basis for identifying materials research needs within the context of state-of-the-art materials science and engineering for sensors.

Database

An added advantage of using a common framework with descriptors is that they can be used to establish a database of information on sensor applications and sensing technologies. Experience with particular sensor systems and technologies for a variety of applications can be characterized and captured in terms of generic descriptors. Thus, valuable ''handbook" data would be available for future users that integrates sensor data and requirements from different sources in a coherent and comprehensible fashion.

The information in the sensors database on candidate technologies and previous applications (presented in terms of descriptors) could also establish the degree of match/mismatch between available technologies and requirements. In this way, quantitative data based on actual experience can be incorporated into the comparison process in addition to the specification data provided by sensor manufacturers and suppliers and information on technology

Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×

attributes. The efficacy of the comparison process should increase as experience is gained with the process.

REFERENCES

Hughes, R.C., A.J. Ricco, M.A. Butler, and S.J. Martin. 1991. Chemical microsensors. Science 254(5028):74–80.


Longshore, R.E., ed. 1993. Growth and Characteristics of Materials for Infrared Detectors. Vol. 2021. SPIE: The International Society for Optical Engineering. Bellingham, Washington: SPIE Press.


Mallon, J. R. 1993. When evolution = revolution. Sensors: The Journal of Machine Perception 10(3):5–8.


NRC (National Research Council). 1989. On-Line Control of Metal Processing. NMAB-444. National Materials Advisory Board, NRC. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

NRC (National Research Council). 1993. Commercialization of Materials for a Global Economy. NMAB-465. National Materials Advisory Board, NRC. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.


Thome, J. 1992. Presentation by John Thome, Motorola Corp, on mass markets for low cost sensors to the Committee on New Sensor Technologies: Materials and Applications, February.


UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization). 1989. Industrial sensors: Advances in materials technology. Monitor Issue 14.


Weyrich, C. 1993. Materials R&D in the electrical and electronics industry. Advanced Materials 5(6):416–421.

NOTES

1.  

Requirements associated with these market drivers are discussed in Part II (chapters 3 to 6) in the context of selected examples.

2.  

Although R&D requirements for sensing materials have often been clearly defined for mass market applications, the large amount of funding required for implementation often remains an issue (NRC, 1993). For example, the cost of establishing a high volume wafer fabrication line for silicon sensor research has been estimated at more than $200 million (Thome, 1992).

3.  

Chemical sensors have been developed with sensitivities on the order of parts per billion (ppb).

4.  

See, for example, Longshore (1993) for a discussion of infrared detector materials.

5.  

Sensor technology has only been identified as an independent field of R&D for about 20 years.

6.  

In instances where mismatches between attributes and specifications occur, it may also be necessary to reconsider priorities given to the particular performance specifications that could not be met. This process ensures that the expectations of the potential sensor user are realistic and that advances in sensor technology to meet those expectations are actually required.

7.  

High-payoff areas for sensor research and development have been defined by the committee as those areas which, if successful, will have a major impact leading to a large return on investment.

Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER 2: INTERDISCIPLINARY STRATEGY." National Research Council. 1995. Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4782.
×
Page 28
Next: PART II: MATERIALS FOR SENSORS--IDENTIFYING NEEDS »
Expanding the Vision of Sensor Materials Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $48.00 Buy Ebook | $38.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Advances in materials science and engineering have paved the way for the development of new and more capable sensors. Drawing upon case studies from manufacturing and structural monitoring and involving chemical and long wave-length infrared sensors, this book suggests an approach that frames the relevant technical issues in such a way as to expedite the consideration of new and novel sensor materials. It enables a multidisciplinary approach for identifying opportunities and making realistic assessments of technical risk and could be used to guide relevant research and development in sensor technologies.

  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. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    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!