MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME programme remit Engineering is the application of technical and scientific knowledge to practical uses such as the design of devices, structures, machines and systems. The Materials, Mechanical and Medical Engineering programme seeks to improve understanding of the principles and practice of mechanical engineering. This involves the application of insight derived from the physical, computational, social and life sciences to the analysis, design, manufacture and operation of engineering systems. The programme has specific foci on mechanical systems, materials processing and medical engineering.
programme strategy To invest in the highest quality investigator initiated research Identify and support under-developed engineering research fields with high potential and/or need. Work across disciplines and with external partners to develop ‘best with best’ collaboration both within the UK and externally To nurture future engineering researchers with the potential and vision to become truly world leading To ensure that the programme has a balance of projects in terms of scale and nearness to market.
Research, economic and societal impact Research supported by the programme delivers both societal and economic impacts. The three key sectors where the programme demonstrates the clearest routes to impact are the Aerospace, Healthcare and Manufacturing sectors. The programme supports research to develop new manufacturing technologies, materials processing, design methodologies and business models. Engineering research can drive manufacturing performance, particularly for high value sectors such as aerospace and healthcare. The UK aerospace industry performs globally and has close and crucial engagement with the UK research base. In medical engineering we support engineering researchers working with life scientists and clinicians to develop new technologies, products and healthcare solutions. The programme seeks to develop a national vision for frontier manufacturing research, taking a 50 year perspective on future business opportunities.
International links 15% of the portfolio has an element of international collaboration across 21 countries, with a total grant value of £67M. The programme has strong collaboration with the leading countries for engineering research notably USA (£30M) and Germany (£6M). The programme is well represented in the countries of: USA (£30m), Germany (£6m) Current international activities: • A major UK visit to Japan in the area of robotics, where the research capabilities of the two countries appear complimentary. The delegation included both UK academics and industrialists supported by the EPSRC Portfolio Manager. The visit focussed on advanced robotics technologies and applications, with the aim of identifying collaborative opportunities
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
International links (continued) • 1 INTERACT award of £97K falls within the programme remit, encouraging international networking with China • Interactions with European Science Foundation • EUROCORES:
3 Collaborative research projects in ‘Smart Structural Systems technologies and 4 in ‘Self Organised NanoStructures’ (total commitment £2.94M)
•A
EUROCORES activity is currently ongoing in synthetic biology, in collaboration with BBSRC. Grants to be announced 2009/10.
• A joint EPSRC/NSF sandpit in synthetic biology in April 2009 led to international collaborative awards of £5.5M.
Public engagement It is our perception that engineering researchers have considerable interest in public engagement - possibly because it is easier convey the relevance of engineering research to the public. However, engineering is not formally part of the schools curriculum and researchers have tended to seek broader audiences outside schools. This has led to successful Partnerships for Public Engagement and the work of Senior Media Fellows Noel Sharkey (who also works in ICT) and Mark Miodownik. Nonetheless, there remains a widespread public misconception about “what is engineering”, and there remains much more work to be done. Engineering researchers have a professional responsibility to promote and represent their professions to wider society, particularly the young. During 2009, EPSRC and BBSRC will sponsor a public dialogue in the emerging area of synthetic biology, involving other stakeholders and interest groups.
Major facilities and infrastructure The programme supports the majority of the engineering users of the major research facilities. HECToR, ISIS and Diamond are all used for materials engineering research; computational facilities are used by fluid modellers. Aerospace is the primary application area for this research, including: • Strain, crack and corrosion reduction Examination of bulk of components and processing devices, allows the nature of defects and stresses to be better understood • In-situ studies during processing By studying materials during processing in real time, this can lead to identification of optimum processing capabilities • Processes in controlled environments Understanding how heat, pressure, and ambient gases affect the process can lead to improvements in the material’s performance.
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME Programme % of total EPSRC budget
16.4%
Inter-relation with other EPSRC programmes Programmes
Level of interaction
Maths Physical Sciences ICT Cross-Disciplinary Interfaces PES
Energy Healthcare
Digital Economy Nanoscience
Cross Council
Subthemes by % value of programme Please click the links below to view the subtheme pages. Medical engineering 24% Manufacturing 17% Design engineering 11% Instrumentation including microsystems 11% Mechanical engineering 10% Structural materials: polymers, composites & ceramics 7% Control systems & robotics engineering 7% Structural materials: metals & alloys 6% Aerospace & aerodynamics 3% Sensors & acoustics 3% Synthetic Biology 0.1%
Questions for discussion Comparing relative impact of research internationally, the UK is 4th in the world. Why do other countries achieve greater research impact? Where do engineers generate their best new research ideas and, of these, where does EPSRC have the most traction? What are the distinctive characteristics of engineering research careers? Where should EPSRC intervene? How can EPSRC support better engagement between engineering and the basic (physical, information, life and social) sciences?
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
Medical engineering At a glance The application of engineering principles and techniques to the medical area. This broad remit stretches from medical instrumentation and devices, including imaging, through to biomaterials, tissue engineering and biomechanics and rehabilitation. Some drug formulation and delivery is also funded by the programme. Medical modelling stretches across all of these scales.
Grants funded
28%
237 28% of Programme
Grants value
24%
£109M 24% of Programme
Greatest cross sub-theme connectivity
Greatest user collaboration
Cross Disciplinary Interfaces Programme – Human Health
NHS bodies
ICT – People and Interactivity
Philips
Physical Science – Analytical Science
Smith and Nephew
DePuy
The theme also contributes £2M to cross-disciplinary grants in other research councils.
Leading centres based on EPSRC funding University of Leeds, Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering University College London, Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering Brunel University, IMRC in ‘Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare’ (MATCH) University of Oxford, Institute of Biomedical Engineering. Imperial University, Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Bioengineering
Universities within sub theme by EPSRC funding Warwick Bath QML RCA Newcastle Bristol
Version 1
Glasgow Swansea Liverpool Edinburgh QUB Sheffield Hallam Kent
Durham Dundee Surrey Bradford Aston Aberdeen City
Southampton ICR Manchester Nottingham Loughborough King’s
Leeds UCL Brunel Oxford Imperial
Strathclyde Sheffield Cambridge Birmingham
£500K-1.5M
£1.5M3M
>£3M
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Medical engineering
Research capability Centres for doctoral training University
Name of centre
University of Strathclyde
Life Sciences Interface (LSI) Doctoral Training Centre in Medical Devices
PhD and postdoc fellows Total PhD studentships (all EPSRC sources)
Number of postdoctoral fellows
229
3 LSI postdoctoral fellows
2.6% of EPSRC total
7 RAEng fellows
Fellowships Advanced research fellows
Number: 14
Total: 6.6%
Dr BT Cox – UCL
Dr A Elfick – Edinburgh
Dr AP Gibson – UCL
Dr IR Gibson – Aberdeen
Dr SA Korossis – Leeds
Dr P Langley – Newcastle
Dr MP MacDonald – Dundee
Dr AE Markaki – Cambridge
Prof P Nithiarasu – Swansea
Prof SJ Sherwin – Imperial
Dr JL Tipper – Leeds
Prof N Tirelli – Manchester
Dr S Waters – Oxford
Dr J Wild – Sheffield
Career acceleration fellows
Number: 3
Total: 13%
Dr TS Leung – UCL
Dr DP Bulte – Oxford
Dr A Olivo – UCL
Leadership fellows
Number: 1
Total: 4.3%
Dr NP Smith – Oxford
Demographics 70 60
Male
50
Female Data not available
40 30 20 10 0 17
10 ‹ 35
67
13 35-45
2
65
10 46-55
2
35
5 56-65
4 65+
5
2
1
Data not available
Based on principal and co-investigators
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Medical engineering
Swot analysis Strengths A large portfolio, with good international standing Areas of strength include medical imaging, tissue engineering, biomaterials and aging research. Medical modelling is an expanding area Young researchers are very active in this area. (Fellows are outlined above, Challenging Engineering Awardees working in this area include Dr A Gibson (UCL), Dr R Wilcox (Leeds), Dr C Mitchell (Bath), Dr S Johnstone (Durham), Dr C Coussios (Oxford), Dr M Stevens (Imperial) Research is multi- and inter-disciplinary, demonstrated by the connectivity with the Cross disciplinary Interfaces Programme- Human Health sub-theme.
Opportunities New research centres (EPSRC calls with Cancer Research UK and Wellcome, please refer to the Towards Next Generation Healthcare portfolio review) Partnerships with other organisations in the healthcare area, for example the NHS Universities have increasing ambition in this area The cross-council programme in Lifelong Health and Wellbeing There is opportunity for engineers to have an impact in improving the quality of life for chronic conditions
Weaknesses Individual areas have high scientific quality but there are not always links between these different research communities Research can be dispersed between different departments; this is reflected in the relatively low number of platform grants in the area Responsive mode proposals on the softer side of medical engineering are often not as competitive as harder engineering proposals Defining the EPSRC position in this complicated funding landscape is being addressed, but can still be improved. The portfolio is broad and can be perceived as disparate.
Threats A regulatory and ethical framework has been established and is modified regularly by legislation in order to ensure public confidence in the conduct and outcome of medical research. It is important to ensure that EPS researchers working in the medical engineering area or moving into it are fully aware of this framework and able to formulate and conduct their research within it The balance between fundamental research and research that will be translated with in short timescales (‹5 years) must be monitored.
This area naturally lends its self to interdisciplinary research, and collaboration with clinicians. The Materials, Mechanical and Medical Engineering Programme is well placed to encourage this Connection with the Next Generation Healthcare programme, in particular for the translation of research.
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Medical engineering
Perceptions Our perception of the current position of medical engineering research Poor
Excellent
Poor
Excellent
International profile/standing Future of area (UK) Multidisciplinarity User collaboration Future research leadership Creativity and adventure Socio-economic benefits Infrastructure and resource level
Threats
Opportunities
EPSRC perception
Summary The UK Medical engineering research community is healthy and of international standing. It is well placed to continue and develop in the future as there is both the people capacity (e.g. Challenging Engineers) and investment in resources (e.g. the Cancer Research UK/EPSRC and Wellcome/EPSRC calls). Much of the work is inter- or multidisciplinary and the community must continue to meet the challenges posed by this. There is also a lot of collaboration with clinicians. The connectivity between communities within the portfolio, however, is not as strong. Reference should also be made to the Cross Disciplinary Interfaces Programme’s Human Health sub-theme. Translation of research and clinical involvement in this area can be difficult due to regulatory barriers. It can also be difficult working with different types of users (patients, clinicians, carers, NHS managers, industry). Extra resource is often needed to initiate and manage research in this area. EPSRC is one of many organisations funding research in this area (others include Department of Health, Technology Strategy Board, Charities, NHS and other research councils) and the funding landscape can be crowded and complex. The research also has an impact on a large range of stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, health managers and industry. We are working to clearly define the role of the Medical Engineering sub-theme within the Healthcare portfolio funded by EPSRC, to understand EPSRC’s role in the broader Healthcare funding landscape and to build partnerships.
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
Manufacturing At a glance The portfolio covers ‘value adding processes’ (supply chains), manufacturing management, designing (including testing and engineering) and precision engineering. This can be divided into ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ engineering. ‘Hard’ manufacturing refers to manufacture of physical objects, ‘soft’ includes other essential elements such as management, adding value, policy and supply chains.
7%
17%
Grants funded
Grants value
59 7% of Programme
£77.3M 17% of Programme
Note: Grant value appears high due to inclusion of a proportion of IMRC funding. This does not include the complete IMRC research portfolio, some aspects of which are classified against other sub-themes.
Greatest cross sub-theme connectivity
Greatest user collaboration
Design Engineering
BAE Systems
Computer Science
Airbus UK
Mechanical Engineering
Buro Happold Rolls-Royce plc
Leading centres based on EPSRC funding Nottingham Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre Cranfield Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre Loughborough Innovative Manufacturing & Construction Centre Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing Imperial College Innovation Studies Centre
Universities within sub theme by EPSRC funding Lancaster City Queens Liverpool Manchester Bath
Version 1
Warwick
Loughborough Cranfield Cambridge Nottingham Imperial Cardiff
£500K-1.5M
£1.5M- >£3M 3M
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Manufacturing
Research capability Centres for doctoral training University
Name of centre
Manchester
Engineering for manufacture: process and product engineering
Warwick
Manufacturing systems engineering
Surrey
Industrial Doctorate Centre in Sustainability for Engineering and Energy Systems
PhD and postdoc fellows Total PhD studentships (all EPSRC sources)
Number of postdoctoral fellows
144
0
1.64% of EPSRC total Note: This figure does not include the full quota of IMRC-based Ph.D. studentships.
Fellowships Advanced research fellows
Number: 1
Total: 0.19
Dr ND Sims – Sheffield
Demographics 25
20 Male Female
15
Data not available 10
5
0 6
2 ‹ 35
11 35-45
4
22 46-55
1
10
2
56-65
Data not available
Based on principal and co-investigators
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Manufacturing
Swot analysis Strengths The manufacturing community is dominated by the IMRCs, which have a high profile and visibility at a governmental level The IMRC model has allowed a ‘critical mass’ of researchers and the guaranteed funding has allowed long-term project continuity and retention of key staff The UK has a strong tradition of manufacturing and skilled – though ageing – expertise base Areas such as precision engineering are strengths of the IMRC base, and compete favourably with European and North American expertise The Technology Strategy Board has become increasingly involved in the Manufacturing space, and are presenting further funding opportunities.
Weaknesses Traditional hard manufacturing is often regarded as incremental by referees and panels, and there is a lack of cutting-edge research across the UK academic sphere What is becoming increasingly prevalent instead are through-life support processes (‘selling a service’), and techniques surrounding Virtual Manufacturing and non-destructive evaluation UK academia may not as yet have a strong base in these fields, though there are noted centres with expertise – not all of these reside within the IMRC portfolio Many soft manufacturing proposals are struggling to be of sufficient quality to reach panel. Common issues cited by referees (drawn from the same community) are in the areas of scientific novelty and insufficient methodology Often the ideas themselves are exciting, however some work needs to be done to change what may be problems stemming from different style to other EPSRC research communities.
Opportunities
Threats
Emerging areas of research prominence bridge several disciplines and communities, presenting the opportunity for exciting collaborative work – though managing these projects will require careful attention
The major threat to the Manufacturing portfolio resides with securing future leadership in the area
The change to the IMRC funding model opens up the portfolio to a wider community, which should help to break down some of the perceived barriers between the IMRC and non-IMRC academics
The portfolio has a very high level of user-led research. While there are obvious benefits to this, there may be a danger that truly innovative manufacturing research is stifled by shorter-term challenges that are more incremental in nature.
This change in funding model also allows new centres to benefit from the IMRC brand, and should both broaden and increase the relevance of the IMRC portfolio
Recruiting talented Ph.D. students is an increasingly difficult challenge, made all the harder if a UKbased student is sought
The recent government paper on manufacturing is an opportunity to provide fresh thought and impetus across all aspects of the sector Research areas such as the green economy, ‘high value manufacturing’, servitisation and the global supply chain are possible areas of future interest Customised and local manufacturing is an area with significant opportunity.
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Manufacturing
Perceptions Our perception of the current position of manufacturing research Poor
Excellent
Poor
Excellent
International profile/standing Future of area (UK) Multidisciplinarity User collaboration Future research leadership Creativity and adventure Socio-economic benefits Infrastructure and resource level
Threats
Opportunities
EPSRC perception
Summary The Hard Manufacturing portfolio is a fascinating area with many issues, with the potential for a significant change in focus and many emerging areas of research. Traditional manufacturing processes are often very incremental and the level of adventure seen in applications is not high. Research into newer processes, still in their early stages, often reverses this trend. There is a factionalised community around those who are or are not within an IMRC, but the upcoming change to the IMRC funding model should present an opportunity to redress this balance, and re-focus the IMRC portfolio back into EPSRC space and onto areas in which the UK currently excels, as well as those areas highlighted as of increasing industrial and economic need. Much research work funded by EPSRC is not seen through individual grant submissions, but is done within the IMRCs, making full use of the flexibility of the funding model. This allows a diverse suite of research activity but can make assessing the full picture of manufacturing research more challenging. The recent review of multiple IMRCs has highlighted a wide-range of internationally-leading research. Soft manufacturing has the potential in terms of groups, IMRC funding and demographics to grow and perform well. However it currently struggles to gain funding for research grants, with referees struggling to identify what the researchers will do beyond an initial interesting idea/aim. There is heavy industrial involvement in the academic sphere, and the landscape has significant players in the form of industrially-sponsored centres such as Rolls-Royce UTCs and AxRCs. The latter, in particular, excel at work sitting upon the uppermost technology readiness level boundaries of EPSRC space. Many of these centres sit alongside the IMRC portfolio, and future opportunities to align these various centres alongside the significant input of the TSB and SMEs via DBERR can be investigated. Of primary concern for EPSRC is ensuring that there exists a substantial foundation of innovative research that focuses upon the frontiers of manufacturing, and offers the possibility of significant change in future manufacturing processes.
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
Design engineering At a glance Design engineering covers the design and styling of engineered and manufactured products, as well as the design of processes which lead to the creation of these products, and also innovation in design and testing technology.
8%
11%
Grants funded
Grants value
65 8% of Programme
£47.8M 11% of Programme
Greatest cross sub-theme connectivity
Greatest user collaboration
Manufacturing
BAE Systems
People and Interactivity
Rolls-Royce Gatsby Charitable Foundation Airbus There is substantial support from a broad range of users.
Leading centres based on EPSRC funding Engineering Design Centre (EDC), Cambridge Innovative Design and Manufacturing Research Centre (IdMRC), Bath Design Group, Loughborough Design, Manufacture & Engineering Management, Strathclyde
Universities within sub theme by EPSRC funding Lancaster Sheffield Hallam UCL Cranfield Salford Leeds
Version 1
Heriot-Watt Imperial Warwick Glasgow
Bath Cambridge Surrey Loughborough
£500K-1.5M
£1.5M- >£3M 3M
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Design engineering
Research capability Centres for doctoral training University
Name of centre
Lancaster
Digital Economy Innovation Centre
Surrey
Industrial Doctorate Centre: Sustainability for Engineering and Energy Systems
There are no centres for doctoral training which focus purely on design, but the above centres include some design work.
PhD and postdoc fellows Total PhD studentships (all EPSRC sources)
Number of postdoctoral fellows
47
4
0.83% of EPSRC total
Fellowships Advanced research fellows
Number: 1
Total: 0.47%
Prof S. Adhikari – Swansea
Demographics 60
50 Male
40
Female Data not available
30
20
10
0 5
2
41
‹ 35
20 35-45
1
60
17 46-55
1
36
9 56-65
1
9 65+
6
4
5
Data not available
Based on principal and co-investigators
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Design engineering
Swot analysis Strengths
Weaknesses
Some successful major consortia located within centres of excellence, for example the Cambridge EDC and the Bath IdMRC
There is considerable uncertainty regarding the UK capability and competitiveness in this area outside of the key consortia
Strong engagement with practitioners has led to clear exploitation pathways
The interface between engineering and the social sciences is one of the most difficult to support
The recent People in Systems review stated that UK design has historical strength and strong reputation
The recent people in systems review highlighted a lack of transformative research in this area
Major consortia such as Design for the 21st Century have been successful in developing the UK capability in this area developing early career academic researchers
There have been difficulties recruiting UK students because of a lack of qualified undergraduates.
In terms of demographics this area is more diverse than other engineering areas, perhaps because of the engagement with the humanities.
Opportunities
Threats
There is an opportunity to embed design into engineering and manufacturing, rather than it being ‘tacked on’ the end
There is a risk of there being isolated pockets of excellence scattered around the country which do not interact and feed off one another
The IMRC funding model will soon change, and there will be opportunities for the EDC and the IdMRC to get the most from the new model that emerges
It is not clear that there is sufficient UK capability to develop future research leaders
The recent People in Systems review has focussed attention onto this area and there is an opportunity for the research communities to come together to address the issues raised.
Version 1
Unless the research community develops competitiveness may be lost once current consortia funding ends The close relationship with practitioners means that this area is particularly sensitive to the economic environment?
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Design engineering
Perceptions Our perception of the current position of design engineering research Poor
Excellent
Poor
Excellent
International profile/standing Future of area (UK) Multidisciplinarity User collaboration Future research leadership Creativity and adventure Socio-economic benefits Infrastructure and resource level
Threats
Opportunities
EPSRC perception
Summary Design engineering in the UK is a relatively large and well funded area of research. It has high quality but somewhat isolated centres of excellence, including two major centres at Cambridge and Bath. This isolation has been partially mitigated by the Design for the 21st Century (D21C) initiative. This initiative, co-funded with AHRC, has supported the softer side of the sub-programme, developing opportunities for those researchers to engage with engineers. The engineering element of the portfolio is characterised by good user collaboration. One area for concern for this sub-programme is the supply of future researchers. A large proportion (27%) of researchers is over 55 years old and there have been difficulties recruiting UK students. However, there are a substantial number (24% of total) of female researchers, especially at the early careers stage. Design is becoming increasingly important as a way for UK plc to gain competitive advantage over its international competitors, and there is an opportunity to get engineers who do not normally consider design to embed design into their research activity. A workshop is planned for 2009 to examine the opportunities in this area.
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
Instrumentation including microsystems At a glance This sub programme review covers Instrumentation and Microsystems. It is the engineering & development of specific instruments or new generic methodologies to improve the measurement important variables. This incorporates microfluidics, microelectromechanical devices, microengineering, micromachining and microfabricated devices, it is at this scale that particle’s can exhibit new properties.
10%
Grants funded
Grants value
88 10% of Programme
£48.7M 11% of Programme
11%
Greatest cross sub-theme connectivity
Greatest user collaboration*
Systems and synthetic biology
DERA/DSTL/QinetiQ
Electronics
TSB
Nanotechnology
Rapiscan Systems Ltd Rolls-Royce plc Airbus
* The majority of user participation on grants tend to be SME whose ad hoc involvement tends to be focussed on a single grant.
Leading centres based on EPSRC funding Southampton, School of engineering Imperial, Faculty of engineering Heriot-Watt University, Industrial Doctorate Centre: Optics and Photonics Technologies & The Scottish Manufacturing Institute Cambridge, Department of engineering
Universities within sub theme by EPSRC funding STFC – Laboratories Edinburgh Loughborough QML Glasgow Bristol
Version 1
Sheffield Birmingham Leeds Liverpool Nottingham
Swansea Manchester Strathclyde Oxford UCL
Heriot-Watt Southampton Imperial Cambridge
£500K-1.5M
£1.5M- >£3M 3M
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Instrumentation including microsystems
Research capability Centres for doctoral training University
Name of centre
Heriot-Watt
Industrial Doctorate Centre: Optics and Photonics Technologies
Strathclyde
Doctoral Training Centre – Medical devices
Strathclyde
Doctoral Training Centre – Medical devices, materials and related technologies
Strathclyde
LSI Doctoral Training Centres – Medical devices doctoral training centre
PhD and postdoc fellows Total PhD studentships (all EPSRC sources)
Number of postdoctoral fellows
137.5
5
2.43% of EPSRC total
Fellowships Advanced research fellows
Number: 5
Total: 2.4%
Flors – Edinburgh
Miller – Imperial
Chan – Imperial
Number: 1
Total: 4.3%
Number: 1
Total: 4.3%
Seddon – Imperial
Esposito – Cambridge Senior research fellows Raithby – Bath Leadership fellows Hensinger – Sussex
Demographics 80 70 Male 60 Female
50
Data not available
40 30 20 10 0 8
2 ‹ 35
71 35-45
9
74 46-55
5
47 56-65
2
5
1 65+
7
1
2
Data not available
Based on principal and co-investigators
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Instrumentation including microsystems
Swot analysis Strengths Underpins many other areas there highly cross disciplinary and technology advances often have the potential for application to other areas. There is an active Knowledge Transfer Network in this area which actively promotes greater connectivity with users Research activity has been able to focus on societal and industrial needs; this is illustrated by half of projects in microsystems having user collaboration; this is mainly from R&D active companies with significant investment in the defence sector Despite the area being relatively small, the breakdown of funding highlights the number of institutions which receive major EPSRC investment; this includes support for critical mass activity through platform, Basic Technology and IMRC. Current research leaders are concentrated at these centres, as is investment for early career researchers. Early career researchers across the theme are seven EPSRC fellowships and there are also two Challenging Engineering award holders.
Opportunities The merger of the sensors and Instrumentation with 4 related KTNs, should enable increased networking potentially improve links with a broader set of researchers and end users Challenges across engineering will be enabled by engagement of instrumentation and Microsystems researchers. Articulation of such challenges such as by the US National Academy of Engineering should enable increased collaborative opportunities Research across this theme is increasingly demonstrating impact across disciplines particularly in Materials and Life Sciences. Such application areas are attractive to new researchers and potentially future leaders; this may also be a route to engage more female researchers.
Version 1
Weaknesses User involvement on EPSRC is lower than average for instrumentation development proposals. Specific groups for instrumentation development are each focussed on particular application; exploitation routes can be very reliant on the value of that application. There appears little collaboration between instrumentation groups The theme has much lower numbers of female researchers than average across the programme. This may be a reflection of the attractiveness of the area to new researchers and should be addressed.
Threats The theme may be particularly sensitive to the current economic climate due to the high level of SME involvement. It is unclear what the future UK capability to exploit this research theme will be. It is important that the engagement of companies through the original KTN is not lost in moving to the broader network India and China are developing capacity in microsystems; the competitiveness of the UK research base may be affected by this increased competition. Both India and China are priority countries for EPSRC and the RAEng, there may be increased opportunities for collaboration.
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Instrumentation including microsystems
Perceptions Our perception of the current position of Instrumentation including microsystems research Poor
Excellent
Poor
Excellent
International profile/standing Future of area (UK) Multidisciplinarity User collaboration Future research leadership Creativity and adventure Socio-economic benefits Infrastructure and resource level
Threats
Opportunities
EPSRC perception
Summary The portfolio is broad with applications across the engineering and science base. Funding in this area continues to be relatively healthy with significant investment in major centres through key awards including platform grants and challenging engineering. Future leadership in the more established areas of instrumentation is fairly reasonable (challenging engineering, first grants and ARF’s), but microsystems is a relatively new area by comparison and future leadership is less clear. There are a number of key challenges in microsystems and it is becoming increasingly important to the application of micro- and nanotechnology. There is particular interest in the life sciences interface, an increasingly key application area; which appears to be attracting early career researchers. There is increasing opportunity for greater collaboration, as grand challenges are identified across engineering, including materials and ICT along side those in the life science. The requirement for novel instrumentation and microsystems to underpin these are clear but there is a challenge for the community to also be active in the development of these. International engagement especially with India and China will become increasingly important as substantial investment continue to be made by those countries across this theme. Connectivity with end users is not uniform across the theme, with the sensors and instrumentation KTN having been a key organisation within this theme. The KTN has consulted EPSRC on challenges faced by industry, along side greater connectivity over strategic planning.
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
Mechanical engineering At a glance Mechanical engineering is vital to all aspects of our everyday lives. It is concerned with the design, development, installation, operation and maintenance of just about anything that has moveable parts. The portfolio covers: Engineering Dynamics and Tribology (integrity of engineering structures and components and the study of interactive surfaces in relative motion), Engineering Matrs/Props/Test: Mechanical (design, production, development of materials and structures, including non-destructive evaluation) and Mechanical and Fluid Power Transmission (gears, chains pulleys and hydraulic power).
11%
Grants funded 95 11% of Programme
10%
Grants value £45.7M 10% of Programme
Greatest cross sub-theme connectivity
Greatest user collaboration*
Structural Materials
DSTL
Manufacturing
BAE
Maths
Rolls-Royce plc
Medical Engineering
Smiths plc Shell Airbus
* This is a very industrially relevant portfolio that performs underpinning research for UK industry. About 63% of responsive mode grants have at least one industrial partner.
Leading centres based on EPSRC funding Research Centre for Non-Destructive Evaluations (RCNDE) IMMPETUS: Institute for Microstructural and Mechanical Process Engineering: The University of Sheffield (also relevant to the Structural Materials: Metals and Alloys subtheme) Bath, Warwick and Nottingham IMRC Centre for Advanced Tribology at Southampton (nCATs) Imperial College London
Universities within sub theme by EPSRC funding Nottingham Bath Liverpool Warwick Leeds Brunel
Version 1
Newcastle Strathclyde Aberdeen UCL Cambridge
Oxford Sheffield Cranfield
Imperial Southampton Manchester Loughborough Bristol
£500K-1.5M
£1.5M- >£3M 3M
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Mechanical engineering
Research capability Centres for doctoral training No Centres for Doctoral Training (CDT) specifically in the Mechanical Engineering were funded in the recent CDT round, however the following CDTs are relevant to Mechanical Engineering discipline: Doctoral Training Centre in Advanced Metallic Systems - Challenges in Global Competitiveness at Sheffield and Manchester. Advanced Composite Centre for Innovation and Science Doctoral Training Centre at Bristol..
PhD and postdoc fellows Total PhD studentships (all EPSRC sources)
Number of postdoctoral fellows
169
1 RAEng Fellow
1.9% of EPSRC total
Fellowships Advanced research fellows
Number: 5
Total: 1%
Dr P Wilcox – Bristol
Dr C Truman – Bristol
Dr S Akehurst – Bath
Dr K Dahm – Leeds
Dr D Wagg – Bristol
Demographics 100 90 80
Male
70
Female
60
Data not available
50 40 30 20 10 0 13
1 ‹ 35
63 35-45
8
83 46-55
4
49
2 56-65
2
10 65+
6
1
Data not available
Based on principal and co-investigators
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Mechanical engineering
Swot analysis Strengths A number of large investigator-led grants have been funded in Mechanical Engineering over the last couple of years: – RCNDE was renewed till 2014 (£2.8M plus ring fenced money) – MMPETUS at Sheffield was renewed till 2012 (£4.6M) – ENCYCLOPAEDIC: Refinement of Engine in-cycle losses of Parasitic and Errant Dynamic Nature a joint grant between Loughborough, Sheffield and Cranfield was funded (£2.1M) There are strong industrial links in these large grants and also in many of the responsive mode applications in this area There are strong collaborative links between many of the leading UK academics in the field
Weaknesses The area suffers from an image problem, work is often perceived as worthy but incremental From the data there appears to be a lack of early stage career academic researchers as evidenced by the demographic data, the low number of first grants (~7 current first grants) and the fact that since 2005 only one new EPSRC Fellowship has been awarded in this area. There is also currently only one Challenging Engineering award that is directly related to the Mechanical Engineering portfolio No Centres for Doctoral Training or Industrial Doctorate Centres specifically in mechanical engineering were supported in the recent Centre for Doctoral Training round.
The UK Mechanical Engineering community has a good international reputation, this is evidenced by the number of platform grants that EPSRC has funded in this area – currently there are 7. There are also strong international links e.g. the Tribology community recently organised a mission to China, with a visit from a Chinese delegation due to take place this spring/summer.
Opportunities Due to the concern about the ageing demographic in Tribology, a Science and Innovation award (£3.3M) was awarded to Southampton to set up nCATs (Centre for Advanced Tribology) – a multidisciplinary centre with a good level of industrial support aiming at building capacity and supporting a number of new researchers in the field Mechanical engineers are well placed in terms of expertise to contribute to grand challenges being addressed in the other Research Base Programmes (e.g. the Materials Grand Challenges that are currently being formulated) and the Mission programmes e.g. Energy, Nano- and Healthcare
Threats In the last couple of years there has been a noticeable drop in the number of applications submitted to EPSRC in this area From the data there appears to be a lack of future leadership in mechanical engineering There is growing competition from emerging economies The economic downturn could have a detrimental effect on industrial R and D programmes and industrial funding of university based research/ training.
Mechanical engineers have growing links with the life sciences communities, medical engineers and clinicians Interactions with TSB and the relevant KTNs (there currently is not a KTN focused purely on mechanical engineering) could be strengthened given the industrial relevance of the work that is performed in academia. There are already a number of KTPs operating in this area. Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Mechanical engineering
Perceptions Our perception of the current position of mechanical engineering research Poor
Excellent
Poor
Excellent
International profile/standing Future of area (UK) Multidisciplinarity User collaboration Future research leadership Creativity and adventure Socio-economic benefits Infrastructure and resource level
Threats
Opportunities
EPSRC perception
Summary Mechanical engineering underpins many other engineering disciplines. It is essential to a number of industries who are actively engaged with University research programmes. The mechanical engineering community has a good international standing, however with a number of senior academics due to retire in the next 5-10 years there are some serious concerns about future leadership in this area. The demographic data presented in this review is worrying, although it may not reflect the whole story as many academics in this sphere spend time in industry prior to pursuing an academic career. However the comparatively low number of first grants and the fact that since 2005 there has only been one EPSRC fellowships in this area reinforces the message that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. In tribology an attempt has recently been made to tackle this problem. A Science and Innovation award (£3.3M) was given to Southampton to set up nCATs (Centre for Advanced Tribology) which is a multi-disciplinary centre aiming at building capacity and supporting a number of new researchers in the field. Currently the portfolio is mainly responsive and directed towards the health of discipline, however mechanical engineers are well placed in terms of expertise to contribute to grand challenges being addressed in other parts of the research base and the mission programmes e.g. Energy, Nano- and Healthcare. Research in this area is often perceived as being more incremental than transformative in nature but there are many exciting developments including an increasing interaction with the medical engineering and life sciences communities. A number of recently funded large grants and platform grants should hopefully help to facilitate a mixture of creative research and user-focused projects. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
Structural materials: polymers, composites & ceramics At a glance The sub programme covers research into the characterisation, processing and modelling of a variety of structural materials, including polymers, composites and ceramics.
6%
7%
Grants funded
Grants value
53 6% of Programme
£29.4M 7% of Programme
Greatest cross sub-theme connectivity
Greatest user collaboration
Structural Ceramics, Physical Sciences
Dstl
Structural Polymers, Physical Sciences
Rolls-Royce plc
Leading centres based on EPSRC funding Interdisciplinary Research Centre in Polymer Science and Technology (Polymer IRC) Northwest Composites Centre ACCIS (Advances Composites Centre for Innovation & Science) at the University of Bristol Centre for Structural Ceramics at Imperial College London
Universities within sub theme by EPSRC funding Cambridge UCL Sheffield QUB Bristol Bradford Loughborough
Version 1
Imperial Manchester
£500K-1.5M
£1.5M- >£3M 3M
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Structural materials: polymers, composites & ceramics
Research capability Centres for doctoral training University
Name of centre
Bristol
Advanced Composites Centre for Innovation & Science (ACCIS)
Surrey
IDC in Micro- and NanoMaterials and Technologies (MiNMaT) at the University of Surrey
PhD and postdoc fellows Total PhD studentships (all EPSRC sources)
Number of postdoctoral fellows
85
1 RAEng Fellow
1% of EPSRC total
Fellowships Advanced research fellows
Number: 1
Total:
Dr I Bond – Bristol
Dr S Zhang – Sheffield
Demographics 40
30 Male Female Data not available
20
10
0 6
3
1
‹ 35
36 35-45
4
37 46-55
5
22
2
56-65
5
2
65+
Data not available
Based on principal and co-investigators
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Structural materials: polymers, composites & ceramics
Swot analysis Strengths
Weaknesses
EPSRC supports 6 first grants in composites and 7 first grants in polymers helping to demonstrate a potentially strong future research capacity
EPSRC supports only one first grant in the area of structural ceramics processing, which could suggest a lack of future leaders
Areas of multidisciplinary research within the subtheme, including good connectivity with the Physical Sciences, Engineering and Biomedical communities
Recent International Review of Materials suggested that polymer research did not match the potential significance of the area
Relatively high level of user collaboration in the areas of polymers and composites.
Little ceramics industry in the UK; the area needs to engage all potential future users not just actual users and manufacturers.
Opportunities Three separate Doctoral Training Centres with research areas of interest to this sub theme, which will each support at least 10 students per year over a 5 year period There are many exciting research areas that are becoming increasingly important including sustainable materials, SMART materials, nanocomposites, biomaterials and biomimetrics There is also an increasing need to find methods to join dissimilar materials. The use of nondestructive evaluation and design are also increasingly important
Threats Increased competition from emerging economies, such as India and China, combined with the move of industrial research out of the UK may also lead to a reduced investment with academia for this sub-theme Community perception that EPSRC does not fund structural materials research may lead to a drop in the number of proposals submitted in the area, similar to the drop observed recently in the metals and alloys portfolio.
As with all materials research, this sub-theme is well placed to contribution to opportunities arising within the priority themes, including energy NSF funding opportunities: potential funding through the materials worlds networks.
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Structural materials: polymers, composites & ceramics
Perceptions Our perception of the current position of structural materials: polymers, composites & ceramics research Poor
Excellent
Poor
Excellent
International profile/standing Future of area (UK) Multidisciplinarity User collaboration Future research leadership Creativity and adventure Socio-economic benefits Infrastructure and resource level
Threats
Opportunities
EPSRC perception
Summary There is a community perception that EPSRC does not fund research in the area of structural materials. However, the success rates in this area are comparable to other sub themes within the programme. The programme currently does not fund a large number of internationally leading researchers within this sub-theme through platform and programme grants. However, there are many large centres within the sub-theme such as ACCIS and the University of Bristol and the EPSRC funded Centre for Structural Ceramics at Imperial College London, which fund internationally-leading research. Funding for early stage career academics is a mixed picture across the portfolio; the research areas of polymers and composites would appear to have a more promising future capacity than ceramics. However, recent activities such as the SCERN (Structural CERamics Network) have helped to reduce the fragmentation. The number of fellowships in this subtheme is relatively low but EPSRC is not the only source of fellowships in this area. There are now three Centres for Doctoral Training relevant to this area, which offers an excellent opportunity to provide highly skilled individuals to academia and industries across this sub-theme. The research within this sub-theme is often addressing areas of potential future value to UK society and the UK economy, and can potentially increase the global competitiveness of the UK. This was highlighted by the recent call from proposals under the ‘Enhancing Damage Tolerance through Materials Science call’ jointly funded by EPSRC and Dstl. Growth areas such as biomedical applications provide opportunities for creativity and multidisciplinary work. A good example of creativity is the current Challenging Engineering award in the area of polymer nanocomposites.
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
Control systems & robotics engineering At a glance This subtheme includes :Control Systems Engineering, Integration and Autonomy, Intelligent and Expert Systems, Learning Engineering Systems, Non-linear Control Systems, Robotics, Assembly, and Automatic Handling. Essentially this is an approach in engineering which is responsible for the design of intelligent control systems that are capable of complex autonomous tasks. This also touches on more complicated technologies that allow systems to adapt to unpredictable activities. 10%
7%
Grants funded
Grants value
87 10% of Programme
£31.6M 7% of Programme
Greatest cross sub-theme connectivity
Greatest user collaboration*
ICT (AI)
BAE Systems
Life Sciences Interface
E.ON
Other Engineering
Technology Strategy Board DERA/DSTL/QinetiQ Corus
* Control and aerospace multinationals
Leading centres based on EPSRC funding Imperial, Control and power group Sheffield, Automotive control and systems engineering Southampton, School of engineering Loughborough, Aeronautical and automotive engineering
Universities within sub theme by EPSRC funding Warwick Cambridge Bristol Leicester Manchester Newcastle Liverpool Durham
Version 1
Strathclyde King’s Edinburgh Nottingham Reading Sussex Heriot-Watt
Southampton Sheffield Loughborough Imperial Cranfield
£500K-1.5M
£1.5M- >£3M 3M
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Control systems & robotics engineering
Research capability Centres for doctoral training University
Name of centre
Oxford
Life Sciences Interface Doctoral Training Centre
Bristol & Bath
Industrial Doctorate Centre in Systems Engineering
PhD and postdoc fellows Total PhD studentships (all EPSRC sources)
Number of postdoctoral fellows
119.3
3
1.35% of EPSRC total
Fellowships Advanced research fellows
Number: 0.1
Total: 0.05%
Number: 0.5
Total: 2.2%
Wagg – Bristol Career acceleration fellows Tanaka – Imperial
Demographics 70 60 50
Male Female
40
Data not available 30 20 10
0 14
1 ‹ 35
60
7 35-45
2
63 46-55
7
36 56-65
2
11
1 65+
9
1
1
Data not available
Based on principal and co-investigators
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Control systems & robotics engineering
Swot analysis Strengths Autonomous systems is an area of increasing activity in the UK and links both the control, systems and robotics communities; well engaged with industry it is impacting on diverse sectors such as transport and healthcare Following investment via several networks, UK robotics researchers are better connected and are beginning to co-ordinate activity. Recent developments in technology and investment have led to a growth in markets for ‘service robotics’, with potential application the home (assisted living) or professional environments such as healthcare The leading control groups are internationally competitive and are able to leverage funding from a variety of sources such as RC, EU and industry. This theme is very relevant to our Strategic Partnership portfolio. Through related areas such as systems engineering, control engineers are increasingly well linked with the life and social sciences. Systems Engineering is well linked with other areas of engineering, and is also well engaged in the life sciences. Systems Biology has received considerable investment over recent years with a number of major centres established.
Opportunities There are opportunities for future Grand Challenges which would have relevance across this theme e.g. autonomous systems, service robotics and assisted living. These grand challenges have significant potential to be coupled with a high public engagement profile The underpinning nature of the area would support users collaborating to support activities in areas such as autonomous systems, which would allow more coherent support and community engagement The research community in robotics has been able to co-ordinate its activities and prioritise areas where it is able to have impact. Substantial funding for robotics research has been made available by the EU who have doubled their investments between 2007 and 2010 to €400M A UK-Japan network in Human Adaptive Mechatronics is ongoing and has now been complemented by other engagement based on the complementary research strengths of the UK and Japan.
Version 1
Weaknesses There is a current lack of critical mass centres in robotics and it is unclear where the research leadership is within the robotics community. Systems and control engineering can lack visibility due to its pervasiveness and also have relatively few such centres; the seeding of centres in systems biology has had a positive impact International profile is currently low across the theme with lack of evidence of collaboration across the EPSRC portfolio. But we do recognise that many of the UK Robotics groups are very active within EU Framework funding activities There is little evidence for a strong cohort of future research leaders across any of the areas covered by this theme. The demographics highlights that this is a very male dominated area with very few Principal Investigators under the age of 35.
Threats Across robotics there are concerns both on the development and exploitation aspects. Currently there is only a small UK industrial base to exploit and maximise the investment in academic research, with Germany the key EU state in this area. Also, across Europe in 2007 there was a significant increase in industrial robot investment; the UK however saw a decrease in sales. Given the above can the UK continue to support a breadth of robotics activity, should it be more focussed on strength areas such a human-robot interaction? A significant proportion of the control researcher community is reliant on the support of key companies in the aerospace sector. Such single sector reliance could leave the area vulnerable should that sector’s priorities move away from investment in the UK research base The UK is not producing sufficient numbers of high quality postgraduates or fellows across this theme for UK institutions and industry. In this environment, it is difficult for the UK academic base to attract and retain the number of high quality researchers to support the health of the research base.
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Control systems & robotics engineering
Perceptions Our perception of the current position of control systems & robotics engineering research Poor
Excellent
International profile/standing Future of area (UK) Multidisciplinarity User collaboration Future research leadership Creativity and adventure
Control
Robotics
Socio-economic benefits Infrastructure and resource level
Poor
Excellent Threats
Opportunities
EPSRC perception
Summary Control and systems engineering has developed strong alignment with key sectors, primarily aerospace but also transport. The research community is able to access a range of funding opportunities. Research Council funding has recently become increasingly concentrated in strategic partnerships. The area of systems engineering is able to develop strong engagement across boundaries specifically with the life and social sciences. However, there is a lack of postgraduates in the area and has been highlighted as an area where there is difficulty in recruitment; there is an industrial doctorate centre in this area. Application areas with established and growth potential are defence, security, field robots, cleaning robots, medical robots and mobile robot platforms for multiple applications. The majority of current industrial robot production is for Motor vehicles, Chemical, rubber and plastics and Machinery industries. There are a small number of widely used robotic networks that promote collaboration. Robotics research is strong in the UK, with key strategic partnerships with defense and nuclear industries, there is a good coverage of EPSRC schemes including Bridging the Gaps, Equipment grants and Basic Technology but, there has not been significant EPSRC investment to date. The majority of robotics funding is currently being supplied by the European commission and Industrial funding sources, this poses the question of the EPSRC role in robotics and does EPSRC need to proactively engage?
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
Structural materials: metals & alloys At a glance The sub programme covers research into the characterisation, processing and modelling of metals and alloys.
6%
6%
Grants funded
Grants value
50 6% of Programme
£27.2M 6% of Programme
Greatest cross sub-theme connectivity
Greatest user collaboration
Mechanical Engineering
Dstl Rolls-Royce plc Corus
Leading centres based on EPSRC funding IMMPETUS (Institute for Microstructure and Mechanical Process Engineering: The University of Sheffield) at the University of Sheffield LATEST (Light Alloys Towards Environmentally Sustainable Transport) Portfolio at the University of Manchester IRC (Interdisciplinary Research Centre) in Materials Processing at the University of Birmingham
Universities within sub theme by EPSRC funding Cambridge Liverpool Swansea QUB Salford
Version 1
Manchester Birmingham Oxford
Sheffield Imperial
£0.5M-1.5M
£1.5M- >£3M 3M
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Structural materials: metals & alloys
Research capability Centres for doctoral training University
Name of centre
University of Sheffield and University of Manchester
Advanced Metallic Systems - Challenges in Global Competitiveness
The Centre for Doctoral Training on the Theory and Simulation of Materials at Imperial College London and the Industrial Doctoral Centre in Micro- and NanoMaterials and Technologies (MiNMaT) at the University of Surrey also have relevance to this sub-theme.
PhD and postdoc fellows Total PhD studentships (all EPSRC sources)
Number of postdoctoral fellows
93
1 RAEng Fellow
1% of EPSRC total
Fellowships Leadership fellows
Number: 1
Total:
Dr JM Allwood – Cambridge
Demographics 50
40 Male Female 30
Data not available
20
10
0 5
1
29
‹ 35
35-45
1
42 46-55
4
19 56-65
2
11
1
65+
Data not available
Based on principal and co-investigators
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Structural materials: metals & alloys
Swot analysis Strengths Metals and alloys research has strong links with major industries with the UK, with over a third of all research proposals within this sub-theme having industry project partners. These interactions include collaboration with world class aerospace and automotive manufacturing industries The sub-theme funds a high number of internationally leading academics through large grants such as the funding for IMMPETUS, the LATEST portfolio partnership and 6 platform grants.
Weaknesses Lack of support for early career researchers by EPSRC, with only one current first grant and no Career Acceleration Fellows or Challenging Engineers As with many areas of traditional manufacturing, metallurgy is often not seen as an attractive career choice for school leavers The area suffers from a perceived lack of creativity Recent International Review of Materials suggested that metallurgy research did not match the potential significance of the area Although there is a large amount of engagement with large companies such as Rolls-Royce and Corus is large, there is much less collaboration with small and medium sized businesses.
Opportunities New Doctoral Training Centre in Advanced Metallic Systems provides EPSRC funding for 10 students per year over 5 years, with the ability to bring others into the centre with alternative sources of funding Metallurgy was highlighted in the 2008 Challenging Engineering call. As proposal will be judged in competition will a wide variety of engineering disciplines, this will be a good opportunity to see how creative early career metallurgists can be and if proposal(s) are successful will provide support for a future leader(s) in metallurgy There are a wide variety of exciting growth areas such as sustainable materials, transport lightweighting, functionalised surfaces and SMART materials
Threats The area receives funding from industries badly affected by the current economic downturn, such as the automotive industry and the steel industry, which could have a negative impact on R&D investment Declining interest for steel research with UK universities, often due to a misconception that steel research cannot be novel Decline of the international visibility of UK metals research, especially if the next generation of internationally leading researchers cannot be recruited A drop in approximately 50 % in the number of proposals submitted in 2007/2008 compared with 2006/2007.
NSF funding opportunities: potential funding through the materials worlds networks.
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Structural materials: metals & alloys
Perceptions Our perception of the current position of structural materials: metals & alloys research Poor
Excellent
Poor
Excellent
International profile/standing Future of area (UK) Multidisciplinarity User collaboration Future research leadership Creativity and adventure Socio-economic benefits Infrastructure and resource level
Threats
Opportunities
EPSRC perception
Summary There is a community perception that EPSRC does not fund research in the area of metals and alloys. However, the success rates in this area are comparable to other sub themes within the Materials, Mechanical and Medical Engineering programme. A substantial drop in the number of applications in the area of metallurgy from 2006 may lead to less being funded, which will only enhance this perception. The field has a relatively large number of internationally leading researchers funded by EPSRC. The sub-theme has two large grants (IMMPETUS and LATEST) and 6 platform grants. Although there are a few future stars acknowledged by the community, it is unclear whether there will be a large enough supply of future research leaders to support the area; this is reflected in the age profile above. Current indications also show the male-to-female ratio is unlikely to change substantially over the coming years. The new Doctoral Training Centre for Advanced Metallic Systems is an opportunity to attract new students to the area from materials and related areas. This comes at a time when uncertainty in the city may tempt more top students to considering a career in research. There is a strong degree of user collaboration across the metals and alloys community and the research is often in areas of potential future value to UK society and the UK economy, and can potentially increase the global competitiveness of the UK. For many academics in the area EPSRC is not the only source of funding, with initiatives such as the Rolls-Royce Materials Technology Partnership providing large amount of funding for research and training. The area suffers from a perception that all metals and alloys research is incremental and that incremental research cannot have a large impact.
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
Aerospace & aerodynamics At a glance The Aerospace and Aerodynamics sub-theme covers all aspects of fluid dynamics research related to aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, and turbulence. The portfolio encompasses aerospace and maritime research, high altitude and space research, and certain aspects of wind turbine research.
6%
3%
Grants funded
Grants value
52.5 6% of Programme
£14.2M 3% of Programme
Greatest cross sub-theme connectivity
Greatest user collaboration*
Control Systems and Robotics Engineering
BAE Systems
Manufacturing
DERA/DSTL/QinetiQ
Structural Materials
Rolls-Royce plc AWE Airbus
* User engagement forms a substantial proportion of the Aerospace portfolio.
Leading centres based on EPSRC funding Imperial College, Department of Aeronautics Cranfield University, School of Engineering Swansea University, School of Engineering These centres each hold individual grants with values ݣ1M. Note that there are several centres with relations to Aerospace (e.g. The Advanced Composites Centre for Innovation and Science at the University of Bristol) that are covered in other portfolio reviews.
Universities within sub theme by EPSRC funding Swansea Cranfield Liverpool Cambridge Southampton Manchester Bristol Strathclyde
Version 1
Imperial
£500K-1.5M
£1.5M- >£3M 3M
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Aerospace & aerodynamics
Research capability PhD and postdoc fellows Total PhD studentships (all EPSRC sources)
Number of postdoctoral fellows
64
1
0.7% of EPSRC total
Fellowships Advanced research fellows
Number: 1
Total: 0.67%
Prof C.B. Allan, Bristol
Demographics 20 Male 15
Female Data not available
10
5
0 2
1 ‹ 35
19 35-45
1
13
2 46-55
11
1
2
56-65
65+
Data not available
Based on principal and co-investigators
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Aerospace & aerodynamics
Swot analysis Strengths The UK aerospace community is generally regarded as internationally-leading and highly thought of, especially within “traditional” aerodynamic fields The academic field is led by prominent senior academics in well-respected universities There is an extremely large and well-organised conglomeration of powerful industrial bodies with direct links to UK Government, and this body works hard to coordinate cutting-edge research with industrial application EPSRC maintains strategic partnerships with many of the largest industrial participants, and has a fruitful two-way relationship with those outside the strategic partnership framework
Weaknesses While engagement with industrial partners is good, issues arise from a difficulty in effective transfer of novel concepts to commercial application – some academics feel there to be a barrier towards changing what is the established order, and/or that ‘traditional’ aerodynamics is a jaded discipline The maritime area of the portfolio is a significant weakness, with a tiny proportion of funded grants and a factionalised community. EPSRC has fallen away as a source of funding for the community, which draws most of their money from EU or industrial sources. The EPSRC EPSRC Aerospace and Defence sector team have been raising awareness of this issue within the naval sector.
This is aided by the very close alignment between the Aerodynamics portfolio and the Aerospace and Defence sector team.
Opportunities
Threats
The UK is re-establishing its position as an international leader in cutting edge aerodynamics – a position which had fallen away since the late 1980s
The difficulty in maintaining a base of high-quality researchers suitable for recruitment to RA level and above is a concern
Within the greater aerospace community, work inside the airframe around systems integration and efficiency will become increasingly important
Current undergraduate teaching courses often focus on traditional aerodynamics, which fails to prepare students for relevant research in the field
Expiration and consolidation of several EPSRC strategic partnerships over the space of 2009/10 will allow potential implementation of a more holistic set of strategic partnership arrangements, hopefully resulting in research funding for UK universities that is industrially-relevant and closely aligned to the national aerospace technology strategy (NATS)
This problem is further exacerbated by a difficulty in retaining talented Ph.D. researchers upon completion of their doctorates.
EPSRC continues to act as an important “knowledge broker” between the academic and industrial communities within the aerospace arena, and there are options to extend this role into the maritime sphere as well There exists significant potential related to Energy and its overlap with this portfolio – wind- and marine-based energy technologies specifically.
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Aerospace & aerodynamics
Perceptions Our perception of the current position of aerospace & aerodynamics research Poor
Excellent
Poor
Excellent
International profile/standing Future of area (UK) Multidisciplinarity User collaboration Future research leadership Creativity and adventure Socio-economic benefits Infrastructure and resource level
Threats
Opportunities
EPSRC perception
Summary The Aerodynamics portfolio remains broadly strong, and the area remains a significant percentage of the M3E responsive mode portfolio. In the aerospace sector, the UK is held in high esteem and the field is currently led by experienced and senior academics at prominent universities. The degree of industrial engagement is extremely high and, while this can result in competing or unrealistic demands upon EPSRC financial resources, is a great strength of the portfolio overall. Strong alignment with the Aerospace and Defence sector team helps to encourage and foster these productive associations. If the field faces any problems, it is in the future difficulties surrounding training and retention of key staff with the potential to become research leaders. This problem arises at the undergraduate level but is exacerbated at the stage of retaining good Ph.D. students at RA level. Both the maritime and space research sectors are minor players in the portfolio, and EPSRC funding for such research is sparse. Both research communities are localised to small groups of universities which appear factionalised. The small size of the communities makes peer review challenging on multiple levels, and large levels of funding for these fields are instead drawn from EU or industrial avenues. In general, there are no over-arching strategies or partnerships, though the maritime community is examining the aerospace model as a way forward.
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
Sensors & acoustics At a glance Acoustics is about the production, transmission, manipulation and reception of sound, from traffic noise to music. This also covers the development of sensors in the form of intelligent measurement systems which can behave intelligently and interpret their own outputs. Sensor development is an enabling technology which underpins research in many other disciplines.
6%
3%
Grants funded
Grants value
47 6% of Programme
£13.9M 3% of Programme
Greatest cross sub-theme connectivity
Greatest user collaboration
Mechanical Engineering (Non-destructive evaluation)
Smith & Nephew Delphi Electronics and Safety
Built Environment (Buildings acoustics)
Serco
Leading centres based on EPSRC funding Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Southampton Acoustics group, Salford Centre for Ultrasonic Engineering, Strathclyde
Universities within sub theme by EPSRC funding Salford Strathclyde Bristol Sheffield Bath Birmingham
Version 1
Southampton
£500K-£1.5M £1.5M- >£3M 3M
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Sensors & acoustics
Research capability PhD and postdoc fellows Total PhD studentships (all EPSRC sources)
Number of postdoctoral fellows
28
5
0.49% of EPSRC total
Fellowships Advanced research fellows
Number: 1
Total: 0.47%
Dr P. Wilcox – Bristol
Demographics 20 18 Male
16
Female 14 Data not available 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2
16
‹ 35
2 35-45
1
15 46-55
2
8
2
56-65
Data not available
Based on principal and co-investigators
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Sensors & acoustics
Swot analysis Strengths
Weaknesses
Acoustics: The UK has a number of centres of excellence which have been successful in developing UK competitiveness; an example being Southampton, which holds the largest investment in the area including a platform grant in structural acoustics
Acoustics: Lack of an international profile has been identified as an issue, the Institute of Acoustics and the research community more generally are seeking to address this
The area has been a focus on public engagement activity; EPSRC has supported a senior media fellow Trevor Cox in the area Sensors: Activity in this area has been strongly linked to application areas, leading to close collaborations between researchers in the sensor technology.
Opportunities Acoustics: The IoA has begun to interact with acoustics societies abroad, running joint conferences, and this could stimulate ‘best with best’ collaborations for the UK There is a significant ultrasonics research community there has been potential to develop this area in non destructive evaluation and medical engineering
Sensors: The UK does not have strength in developing generic sensor platforms due to the strong linkage between sensor groups to specific application areas Sensor technology is critically reliant on power system technologies, research in this aligned area has not been well integrated.
Threats Overall, there are a large number of postdoctoral fellows in the field, and they will need support to make the leap to lecturer; i.e. is enough being done to support early careers researchers in this field? The alignment of sensor research to specific application areas, could stifle cross over of developments across sensor platforms and also lead to duplication of effort.
Sensors: The UK has the capability for exploitation as the pathway is often through SME’s and spinout companies.
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Sensors & acoustics
Perceptions Our perception of the current position of sensors & acoustics research Poor
Excellent
Poor
Excellent
International profile/standing Future of area (UK) Multidisciplinarity User collaboration Future research leadership Creativity and adventure Socio-economic benefits Infrastructure and resource level
Threats
Opportunities
EPSRC perception
Summary Acoustics: The UK has a significant research capability in the field of acoustics; this strength is reflected in the EPSRC portfolio. The research community is well linked, with the Institute of Acoustics a principal forum for engagement. There is a concern with the lack of international interactions but this has been recognised as an issue with a number of joint conferences planned. Sensors: Given the close link with application it is crucial that academic researchers are closely involved in the exploitation pathway. Both EPSRC and TSB have worked to bring communities together by improving interactions with the Sensors and Instrumentation KTN. Sensors and instrumentation underpins many other research areas and there is a danger that its contribution is not as visible as other areas. However, the spread of application areas across engineering, clinical, life and physical sciences means there are many funding agencies supporting sensor research. The opportunity for exploitation is also reflected by TSB activity in this area. The two areas have similarities in that they are relatively small compared to other sub-themes within the engineering portfolio; however, they represent areas where the UK has significant research capability and increased collaboration would increase their impact.
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
MATERIALS MECHANICAL & MEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME
Synthetic biology At a glance This nascent area of UK research utilises Engineering tools and principals to design and manufacture biologically based parts, devices and systems that do not exist in that natural world, as well as the redesign of existing, natural biological systems.
1%
0.1%
Grants funded
Grants value
7 1% of Programme
£0.4M 0.1% of Programme
Greatest cross sub-theme connectivity
Greatest user collaboration
Synthetic chemistry
The data only includes the support for the 7 research networks, it does not include the Science and Innovation award and a recent £1.7M consortium grant. The apparent lack of user involvement reflects the very small portfolio to date.
Electronic Materials and devices Instrumentation including microsystems
Leading centres based on EPSRC funding Science and Innovation Award, Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation at Imperial College
Universities within sub theme by EPSRC funding Oxford Nottingham
Version 1
Imperial
£500K-1.5M
£1.5M- >£3M 3M
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Synthetic Biology
Research capability Centres for doctoral training University
Name of centre
Imperial
Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation
PhD and postdoc fellows Total PhD studentships (all EPSRC sources)
Number of postdoctoral fellows
4
0
0.1% of EPSRC total
Demographics 5
4 Male Female 3
Data not available
2
1
0 1
4
2
‹ 35
35-45
46-55
56-65
65+
Data not available
Based on principal and co-investigators
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Synthetic Biology
Swot analysis Strengths This is a very multidisciplinary area of research bringing together researchers form engineering, physical sciences and the life sciences. Several major groups have already become internationally recognised for their work in synthetic biology. A number of major groups have received support from ESPRC & BBSRC. Both Councils continue to see this as a priority area with the aim of developing UK capability Research Councils and other stakeholders are working together as there is collective agreement that this is a priority area for UK investment. Significant investment has been made to develop the UK capability; for example, over £4M was awarded Imperial for their Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation at Imperial College. In addition a number of networks have been jointly supported with BBSRC to promote engagement and collaboration in this area.
Opportunities The requirement for international engagement has been recognised, with activities associated with the US and EU on-going. The EPSRC-NSF Sandpit has paved the way for innovative transnational collaborative projects, supporting our best with best policy Despite being a relatively small research effort to date in the UK there are significant research activities in relevant areas such as systems biology and control engineering. The UK does have the breadth of activity to allow synthetic biology to develop Undergraduate and Masters Courses have now been developed at a number of institutions which should provide increased numbers of relevantly trained graduates and postgraduates to come through into the research base. Development opportunities for early career researchers will be encouraged with the Flashlight funding scheme, promoting future leadership and multidisciplinary collaboration.
Version 1
Weaknesses If the area is to develop then the engagement of engineering researchers is crucial. The level of involvement of the EPS communities still has to increase for the area to continue to develop There is some confusion across stakeholders over what synthetic biology really is and the lack of an agreed definition within the field is causing confusion amongst researchers There appears to be a lack of engagement with the user base to date, this may simply be a reflection of the emergent nature of the area; however, such engagement will need to develop along side the portfolio.
Threats Public perceptions and fears of synthetic biology may obstruct research in this field, in a similar fashion to GM. This has been recognised by all stakeholders and public engagement and dialogue activities are in the process of being developed. It is recognised that the Research Councils as well as the societies must be at the forefront of promoting this dialogue The importance of integrating engineers in the development of this area does not yet appear to be fully appreciated, but if sufficient engineers do not take the opportunity to work in this area the field could suffer.
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
Synthetic Biology
Perceptions Our perception of the current position of synthetic biology research Poor
Excellent
International profile/standing Future of area (UK) Multidisciplinarity User collaboration
Too early to judge
Future research leadership Creativity and adventure Socio-economic benefits Infrastructure and resource level
Poor
Excellent Threats
Opportunities
EPSRC perception
Summary This emerging area is one which EPSRC is looking to develop its portfolio and this narrative has little direct portfolio data to underpin it. It is expected that this area will develop over the coming 2-3 years and as such, subsequent reviews should appear very different. In an attempt to build this portfolio, synthetic biology is currently a priority signpost within responsive mode. To date there has been a limited response to the signpost; however, a major £1.7M collaborative grant between Nottingham, Glasgow and Oxford has been supported (however too late to be included in the above data). This is a fast developing area of transformative science offering unique opportunities to deliver significant benefits in areas such as therapeutics, environmental biosensors and potentially novel methods to produce food, drugs, chemicals or energy. As a result the area is truly multidisciplinary, drawing engineers, biologists, chemists, mathematicians and many more. This may however cause difficulties when requesting for higher levels of funding as the research will often require larger groups with people from different areas. EPSRC believes that it is essential for engineering researchers to be fully engaged in order to maximise the potential of this area for the UK, hence the investment made in 2008 Science and Innovation awards and the recent UK/US call with NSF for a sandpit in synthetic biology. EPSRC co-funded 7 networks in the area with BBSRC and is currently working with BBSRC, AHRC and ESRC to provide funding for networking and research activities relating to synthetic biology. EPSRC continues to input into policy development and community coordination activities by representation on the Royal Academy of Engineering Working Group on synthetic biology, the Royal Society synthetic biology policy co-ordination group and the Research councils coordination group for synthetic biology. A key complementary activity going forward will be the development of a public dialogue. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET www.epsrc.ac.uk
Version 1
Data is based on EPSRC’s current portfolio in January 2009
