1 National Facilities and Instrumentation NaFILeonard Spinu, Guebre Tessema, Charles Ying

2 National Facilities and Instrumentation NaFI3 Programs National Facilities (NaF) Materials Innovation Platforms - MIP Major Research Instrumentation (MRI)

3 Why these programs? Materials Research requires instrumentation at many different scales. Attempt to provide acquisition of that equipment at every level. Fund development of new instrumentation Integrate with DMR programmatic areas and other instrumentation programs.

4 Instrumentation to support materials researchMREFC $100M NaF $10M MIP User facilities $4M MRI ~$12M $4M $100K $100K Benchtop IIA 1 30 200 Number of awards/year

5 Major Research InstrumentationProposals in range of $100,000 to $4M Track 1 – acquisition Track 2 – development over $1 million should address the potential impact of the instrument on the research community of interest and at the regional or national level when appropriate Limit 3 proposals per institution and 1 must be development if submitting 3 30% cost sharing required PhD institutions Electron Microscopes, X-ray Diffractometers, X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy, X-ray Fluorescence, Ultrafast Lasers, Atomic force microscopes, Surface Plasmon Resonance, Electron beam lithography, Cryo-systems for magnets, etc. Proposals due Jan. 11, 2017 Proposals that request funds from NSF in the range $100,000-$4 million may be accepted from any MRI-eligible organization. Proposals that request funds from NSF less than $100,000 may also be accepted from any MRI-eligible organization for the disciplines of mathematics or social, behavioral and economic sciences and from non-Ph.D.- granting institutions of higher education for all NSF-supported disciplines.

6 Proposals to MRI must conform to one or more of its primary goals:MRI Goals Proposals to MRI must conform to one or more of its primary goals: Support the acquisition of major state-of-the-art instrumentation, thereby improving access and increased use of modern research and research training instrumentation shared by the Nation's scientists, engineers, and graduate and undergraduate students; Foster the development of the next generation of major instrumentation, resulting in new instruments that are more widely used, and/or open up new areas of research and research training; Improve the quality and expand the scope of research and research training in science and engineering; Enhance the capabilities of researchers both within and outside the proposing organization through shared-use instrumentation; Leverage the strengths of private sector partners to build instrument development capacity at MRI submission-eligible organizations.

7 Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) CaveatsThe MRI program will not support requests for: General purpose equipment, including general purpose computers or assorted instruments that do not share a common or specific research or research training focus; Instrumentation used primarily for science and engineering education courses; Renovation or modernization of research facilities, supporting equipment, and general purpose platforms. This includes “bricks-and-mortar” projects, as well as sustaining infrastructure (e.g., standard electrical/plumbing systems, elevators), supporting components (e.g., standard computer networks, clean rooms, ventilation systems) and fixed or non-fixed structures, vehicles and/or environments that host an instrument, but do not otherwise contribute directly to data gathering. Other opportunities (e.g., the Academic Research Infrastructure program) may be available to support these types of projects. 7

8 MRI in FY17 Notes: The maximum budget request from NSF ($4 million) is the same for either acquisition or development proposals. Proposals must be for a single, well-integrated instrument. An ensemble of equipment must enable a specific research experiment or type of experiment to be undertaken. MRI does not support the acquisition or development of a suite of instruments to outfit research facilities or to conduct independent research activities simultaneously.

9 Eligible Project CostsAcquisition Proposals (ACQ) – limited to: Instrument purchase, installation, commissioning, and calibration Direct and indirect costs of operation, maintenance, and other appropriate technical support during the award period. Salary support, including fringe benefits and indirect costs, is allowed for personnel involved in the operation and maintenance. Student support must be justified. Costs for publication, all travel (including for conferences), research and outreach activities are not allowed. Training support for proper O&M is allowed. Development Proposals (DEV) – limited to: Parts and materials needed for the construction of the instrument and commissioning costs Direct and indirect costs associated with support of personnel engaged strictly in the instrument development effort. Requests for personnel support must include a description of the responsibilities of the project co-workers and explain why a given position is necessary for the completion of the design and construction of the new instrument. Support for research to be conducted using the instrument after development, publication and training costs, user training, outreach activities and conference travel are not allowed. Travel is allowed to enable collaboration on development proposals. Training support for only proper O&M is allowed.

10 Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Proposal ReviewProposals compliance checked by OIA. Proposals sent to Divisions based on PI selection. Divisions break proposals into Panels by topic, instrumentation type. Each Division is different. Panels make recommendations. Proposals ~$1M or greater compete internally for 8-10 slots. Program Directors make program balance decisions.

11 Review Process 3 Ad hoc reviewsAd hoc reviewers comprise panels (about12) Virtual panels or ad hoc in areas of few proposals Typically 4 inputs (panel summary, 3 reviews) Program Director Review Program balance Co-funding

12 Proposal Review: Evaluation Criteria: Intellectual MeritWhat is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (the Principal Investigator, co-PIs, sub-contracts, etc.) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

13 Proposal Review: Evaluation Criteria: Broader ImpactsWhat are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

14 MRI Specific Evaluation CriteriaInstrument acquisition: To what extent is the instrumentation shared for research and/or research training. Does the management plan include sufficient infrastructure and technical expertise to allow effective usage of the instrument? Is there adequate organizational commitments for operations and maintenance? Is the request for operation and maintenance well justified and reasonable in magnitude? Are there adequate plans for using the new or enhanced research capability in teaching, training or learning? For mid-range (>$1 million) instrument acquisition proposals: the impact of the instrumentation at the state or national level, and the detailed plans for funding of operation and maintenance.

15 MRI Specific Evaluation CriteriaInstrument development: The adequacy of the management plan. - Does the plan have a realistic, detailed schedule? - Are mechanisms in place to deal with potential risks? The availability of appropriate technical expertise to design and construct the instrument. If students are involved, is this appropriate for project needs and student training? The appropriateness of the cost of the new technology. The need for development of a new instrument. - Will the proposed instrument enable enhanced performance over existing instruments, or new types of measurement or information gathering? - Is there a strong need for the new instrument in the larger user community?

16 What makes an MRI proposal fail before it is reviewed?Proposals describing activities that fall outside of the scope of those supported by the MRI program; Proposals describing activities that fall outside of the scope of those supported by NSF; Proposals that do not adequately distinguish development efforts from acquisition or basic research efforts; Proposals that exceed an organization’s submission limit; Proposals that represent standard research projects appropriate for submission to regular NSF programs; Proposals to place an instrument at a facility of another Federal agency or one of their FFRDCs that are not submitted by consortia; Proposals to place an instrument at a facility currently receiving funding through the NSF Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account; These proposals will be Returned Without Review!

17 What makes an MRI proposal fail before it is reviewed?Applicable proposals that do not indicate appropriate levels of cost-sharing, and that do not contain required documentation demonstrating organizational commitment; Proposals that do not contain required supplemental documentation or that contain supplemental documentation other than those required and/or encouraged by the MRI program; Proposals that do not conform to font, margin and page limitations; Proposals that do not separately address the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts in the Project Summary; Proposals that do not contain a Management Plan in the Project Description; These proposals will be Returned Without Review!

18 What makes an MRI proposal fail during the review?Proposals that do not demonstrate adequate institutional commitment; Proposals that do not adequately demonstrate how and by whom the instrument will be utilized, operated and maintained – i.e., proposals without a strong management plan; Proposals that do not demonstrate shared-use within the institution, and/or among institutions; Proposals that do not adequately match the budget to the scope of the project; Proposals that do not adequately demonstrate the need for the specified instrument; Proposals that request instrumentation that is otherwise reasonably accessible; Proposals that do not describe research training, particularly among groups underrepresented in science and engineering;

19 What can make an MRI proposal actually succeed?Choose the proper Division for review of your proposal. Do not solely choose based on where you are currently funded; While broad research topics are encouraged, try to be broad within a Division. Cross-Directorate, and even cross-Division, research topics are difficult to review in comparison to more focused proposals; Describe (enthusiastically) compelling research / research training activities undertaken by the participants in your proposal; Clearly define who is doing which research project. In the Intellectual Merit, describe the science and not the instrument; Demonstrate how your activities will have unique contributions within and across disciplines in both research and research training; Match your proposed effort to the mission of your institution and describe it in that context. Convince reviewers that an award will build capacity to meet well thought out programmatic / institutional goals; Alignment with regional and societal goals can be of value; Demonstrate appropriate leadership and commitment to bring the project to completion;

20 What can make an MRI proposal actually succeed?Match the budget / requested resources to the scope of the project. Ask for what is needed, no more, no less –justify the request; Match the instrument with the proposed research. MRI allows for incremental acquisitions, but not “growing into” an instrument; Research projects should match the extra / extended / add-on features of the instrument. Show a clear justification for this capability per proposed research topic; Same is true for cluster or multiple instrument proposals. Justify the need for each item per each proposed research topic, not distributed among the topics; The Management Plan should cover stewardship issues (operator, training plan, extended warranty, user fee plan?); Historical average award size ~ $400 – 600k. Proposals approximately $1M go through an internal competition and therefore have a very low success rate. On the order of 6-10 proposals >$2M are awarded per competition.

21 A good MRI Proposal… Meets the need of multiple usersShows a perfect match between the instrumentation and the proposed research needs Describes only the relevant research projects impacted by the instrument Includes a compelling instrument management plan: Space long term sustainable plan

22 DMR Process For Reviewing MRI Proposals2016 DMR MRI competition: 125 proposals reviewed in 10 Panels + ad hoc review Film Growth Nanofab SQUID/PPMS/Thermo Scanning Force Microcopy SEM Spectroscopy Optical Methods TEM X-Rays 27 awards made

23 Instrumentation to support materials researchMREFC $100M NaF $10M MIP User facilities $4M MRI ~$12M $4M $100K $100K Benchtop IIA 1 30 200 Number of awards/year

24 Multidisciplinary User Facilities for ResearchStewardship: National Facilities program provides high cost and unique experimental capabilities to the DMR community. Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source National High Magnetic Field Laboratory Partnership: National Facilities program partners: NIST: The Center For High Resolution Neutron Scattering (CHRNS) at the NIST Center for Neutron Research DOE: The Intermediate Energy X-Ray (IEX) beamline 29-ID currently under construction at the Advanced Photon Source. NSF/Chem: ChemMatCARS Beamline at the Advanced Photon Source NSF/ENG: National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) POs: Leonard Spinu, Guebre Tessema, Charles, Ying

25 Science at the Scales of the Universeν quarks proton nuclei atoms molecules proteins polymers nanostructures 100 Hz gravitational wave solar system observable universe Sun planets Crab Nebula galaxies Milky Way Virgo cluster IceCube LHC NSCL CHESS NHMFL LIGO NSO DKIST Gemini NOAO LSST Arecibo GBO NRAO VLBA 10-24 10-20 10-16 10-12 10-8 10-4 1 104 108 1012 1016 1020 1024 m

26 The Progress of a Major FacilityDevelopment Design Construction Operation Divestment Final Conceptual Preliminary

27 The Progress of a Major FacilityDevelopment Design Construction Operation Divestment 2 - 10 2 2 2 6 - 10 2 - 5 Final Conceptual Preliminary

28 National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (DMR)Development Design Construction Operation Divestment 2 - 10 2 2 - 5 6 - 10 National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (DMR)  Joint among Florida State, Florida, Los Alamos  High magnetic field research and capabilities for materials research, condensed matter physics, and other areas  $ 35M/yr NHMFL  Synchrotron for materials and biological research Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source (DMR)  Joint with BIO, ENG and NIH  NSF: $ 20M/yr CHESS

29 National High Magnetic Field LaboratoryFlorida State University 45T Hybrid DC Magnet 900MHz, 105mm bore 21T NMR/MRI Magnet 101T Pulse Magnet 10mm bore Los Alamos National Laboratory 1.4 GW Generator Advanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Spectroscopy Facility 11.4T MRI Magnet 400mm warm bore High B/T Facility 17T, 6weeks at 1mK University of Florida

30 Mission Operate a world-leading high-magnetic-field user programCarry out in-house research in support of the user program Maintain the facility and develop new instrumentation Conduct education and outreach activities 21.1 T / 105 mm NMR 21 T / 123 mm ICR 45 T hybrid magnet 101 T pulsed fields 11 T / 400 mm MRI <1 mK High B/T

31

32 NAF– Relevance to National Priorities/NSF Mission/Research FieldsUSER FACILITIES for the research and educational communities, Specialized high-cost, state-of-the-art instruments Science and technology-related resources and experiences for students, and faculty Student and teacher education, general public awareness, curriculum development materials, and educational research.

33 NAF Program Review CriteriaNSF’s two merit-review criteria: (1) the intellectual merit and (2) the broader impacts of the activities The user programs (#users, user service, #hrs of beamtime or magnet time, # pubs in premier journals) The in-house research programs (Quality/impact, Number of publications, New techniques or instruments developed) The facility operations and development, including beamlines, and instrumentation The Education, training, and outreach   Diversity: Accomplishments and plans for improvement Long-term plans: to contribute significant research developments both nationally and internationally

34 DMR - National Facilities & Instrumentation (NaFI) Program PortfolioStewardship: National Facilities program provides high cost and unique experimental capabilities to the DMR community: National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source (CHESS) Materials Innovation Platforms (MIP) Partnership: National Facilities program partners: NIST: The Center For High Resolution Neutron Scattering (CHRNS) at the NIST Center for Neutron Research NSF/Chem: ChemMatCARS Beamline at the Advanced Photon Source NSF/ENG: National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI) NSF/OIA: Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program – division leads in instrumentation development efforts.

35 Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source (CHESS) http://news. chessCHESS is a high intensity hard X-ray source powered by the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR), buried under the Cornell campus. One of six federally funded light sources Currently 11 experimental stations in the user program. ~ 1300 users/yr in operando studies, high pressure, BioSAXS, advanced imaging, in situ materials under stress, crystallography, spectroscopy Six light sources – 5 synchrotrons ALS, APS, CHESS, NSLS, and SSRL, plus the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS). CHESS is the only light source funded by the NSF. $2M/yr in support of MacCHESS

36 NIST Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering (CHRNS)Neutron Spin Echo The Multi Axis Crystal Spectrometer Back Scattering Spectrometer Ultra SANS Cold neutron TOF Spectrometer

37 NSF Partnership with NIST: The Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering (CHRNS)NSF-DMR provides support for six instruments ($~3M/yr) NIST provides the source of the neutrons Operates with ≈ 99% reliability Serves ≈ 500 scientists Contributes to ≈ 25 PhD’s Expands the US neutron community Summer School Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship Summer high school internship program. Objectives to develop and operate neutron scattering instrumentation, with broad application in materials research, for use by the general scientific community to promote the effective use of the CHRNS instruments by having an identifiable staff whose primary function is to assist users to conduct research that advances the capabilities and utilization of CHRNS facilities to contribute to the development of human resources through educational and outreach efforts Through the shared operation and development of world-class instruments

38 NSF Partnership with the Advanced Photon Source (APS): ChemMatCARSCHE ($970K) & DMR ($330K) provide support for three experimental stations APS (DOE) supports the light source Science focus: structure and dynamics over the range of length scales from atomic and molecular to mesoscopic. Techniques span a spatial resolution of sub-angstrom to micrometer and a time resolution from 50 ns to minutes. High Precision Crystallography; Scattering From Liquid Surfaces and Liquid-Liquid Interfaces; Small and wide-angle x-ray scattering (SAXS/WAXS) Typical annual usage 221 unique users from 60 institutions 117 individual experiments

39 National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI)NNCI Sites Center for Nanoscale Systems (CNS) Cornell Nanoscale Science and Technology Facility (CNF) Kentucky Multi-Scale Manufacturing and Nano Integration Node (KY MMNIN) Mid-Atlantic Nanotechnology Hub (MANTH) Midwest Nanotechnology Infrastructure Corridor (MINIC) Montana Nanotechnology Facility (MONT) Nanotechnology Collaborative Infrastructure Southwest (NCI-SW) Nebraska Nanoscale Facility (NNF) Northwest Nanotechnology Infrastructure (NNI) Research Triangle Nanotechnology Network (RTNN) San Diego Nanotechnology Infrastructure (SDNI) Soft and Hybrid Nanotechnology Experimental (SHyNE) Resource 16 NNCI Sites 13 Partners 17 States 67 Facilities >2000 Tools NSF Funded $81M total

40 NNCI User Data – Users by Discipline

41 Materials Innovation Platforms (MIP)MIP Concept: Combine a focused research effort in an interactive feedback loop together with a mid-scale user facility open to the community to accelerate advancement of a materials research topic of national importance Focus: 2-dimensional chalcogenide materials for future electronics e.g., Can theory model growth kinetics and guide materials synthesis? Focus: interfacial materials, combining oxides & 2D materials, for valleytronics & spintronics e.g., Can we design and create new interfacial materials by “breaking” Gibbs’ & Pauling’s rules? Current Status: Accept user proposals; some samples delivered to users already World’s first 300-atm floating-zone furnace at Paradim-JHU Integrated MBE, CVD, ARPES & STM/AFM later in 2017 Access to computational, TEM & other capabilities Webinars and summer schools Research MIPs are centered around a focused research team of at least 3 senior investigators addressing a targeted materials grand challenge and/or technological outcome of national impact. Achievable only through the acquisition and development of unique, state-of-the-art, mid-scale instrumentation – national need for equipment. New materials and materials phenomena are discovered where synthesis, characterization, and theory/modeling are done in an iterative and “closed-loop” manner. (MGI) 2D Crystal Consortium (2DCC) is located at Pennsylvania State University. Platform for the Accelerated Realization, Analysis, & Discovery of Interface Materials (PARADIM) is located at Cornell University (thin-film growth and characterization, including TEM, and in-house research), Johns Hopkins University (bulk crystal growth and characterization), Clark Atlantic University (computational), and Princeton University (in-house research only). Gibbs free energy controls thermodynamics and leads to a reaction towards a lower Gibbs free energy. When interface energy, strain energy, and surface energy are also considered, interfacial materials that would not be stable in a bulk form become thermodynamically stable. There are several Pualing's rules regarding cation and anion radii, valance, coordination, etc. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauling%27s_rules . New interfacial materials are possible by "breaking" these rules.

42 Questions?