Report of an Army Workshop on 

Convergence Forecasting: 

Mechanochemical Transduction 

Douglas Kiserow, David Stepp, Stephen Lee, and Peter Reynolds 

Edited by John W. Lyons and Richard Chait 

Sponsored by the Army Research Office 

Held at Noblis, Inc., Falls Church, Virginia 

January 11–12, 2012 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

National Defense University 

July 2012 

ii 
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy 

or position of the National Defense University, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government. All 

information and sources for this paper were drawn from unclassified materials. 

Douglas Kiserow Program Manager, Polymer Chemistry, Chief, Chemical Sciences Division, 

Director, Physical Sciences Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office 

David Stepp Program Manager, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, Chief, Materials Science 

Division, Engineering Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office 

Stephen Lee Chief Scientist, U.S. Army Research Office 

Peter Reynolds Senior Research Scientist (ST), Physical Sciences Directorate, U.S. Army 

Research Office 

Acknowledgements 

We thank Drs. Marilyn Freeman, David Skatrud, and Linton Wells for their support for this 

work. 

ii 
iii 

CONTENTS 

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................1

I. Science and Technology Forecasting Approaches ................................................................2

II. Landmark Army Study of S&T Forecasting—STAR21......................................................2

STAR 21 in Retrospect.................................................................................................................3

A New Strategy for S&T Forecasting...........................................................................................4

III.Workshop on Convergence Forecasting: Mechanochemical Transduction.......................5

Overview of Mechanochemical Transduction..............................................................................6

Workshop Objectives and Approach ............................................................................................6

Details of the Workshop ...............................................................................................................7

IV.Workshop Results ....................................................................................................................9

Session 1 .......................................................................................................................................9

Session 2 .....................................................................................................................................12

Session 2 .....................................................................................................................................12

Session 3 .....................................................................................................................................14

V. Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................................17

Appendix A: List of Attendees.............................................................................................20

Appendix B: Workshop Agenda .........................................................................................22

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Mechanochemical Transduction Convergence Workshop Format ..................................8

Figure 2. Results of Breakout Session 1, Group 1.........................................................................10

Figure 3. Potential Ultrasound-Mediated Capabilities in Mechanochemical Transduction..........10

Figure 4. Factors that Limit Potential Ultrasound-Mediated Mechanochemical Transduction 

Capabilities ............................................................................................................................11

Figure 5. Forecasting New Capabilities and Required Convergences for Force Protection .........14

Figure 6. The Molecular Foundry..................................................................................................15

Figure 7. Forecasting Required Convergences to Enable Property Engineering...........................15

Figure 8. Forecasting New Capabilities and Required Convergences for Engineered Resilient 

Systems ..................................................................................................................................16

Figure 9. Forecasting New Capabilities and Required Convergences for Lethal Effects .............17
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

While the rapid pace of science and technology (S&T) in the modern world is enabling new 

capabilities for the Army, the globalization of information, research, and economies poses new 

challenges for the Department of Defense (DoD) to stay at the cutting edge of S&T research and 

avoid technological surprise. Previous approaches to forecasting S&T abilities of future allies 

and adversaries, and to predicting corresponding changes required for Army strategy have had 

limited success. A method for more accurately predicting the emergence of future scientific 

discoveries and applications would be instrumental for improving the effectiveness of DoD S&T 

programs. 

Recent studies have suggested a more successful forecasting approach: Identify potential 

confluences or convergences of individual science and engineering fields and then project how 

those convergences may lead to new capabilities. One recently emerged convergence is between 

the fields of chemistry and materials science. This revolutionary new field, called 

mechanochemical transduction, focuses on understanding and harnessing the fundamental 

processes through which mechanical stress can lead to a pre-designed chemical reaction. 

In January 2012, the Army Research Office (ARO) sponsored the Mechanochemical 

Transduction Convergence Workshop as a test case for identifying convergences of disciplines 

and their potential impact on science and the Army. A diverse group of academic and 

government scientists were invited to participate in the workshop. The academic researchers 

were renowned subject matter experts representing a wide range of disciplines, including 

chemical engineering, organic chemistry, physical organic chemistry, molecular biochemistry, 

materials engineering, multi-scale theory, metallurgy, and physics. The chief objective of the 

workshop was to identify the most promising research opportunities and interdisciplinary 

convergences that could lead the field of mechanochemical transduction in new directions with 

unexpected outcomes that would be relevant to future Army needs. 

1 
I. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FORECASTING APPROACHES 

A crucial role of Department of Defense (DoD) science and technology (S&T) programs is to 

avoid technological surprise resulting from the exponential increase in the pace of discovery and 

change in worldwide S&T. In addition, the nature of military threats also changes over time, 

resulting in changes in the capabilities required of units, vehicles, and the individual warfighter. 

Since World War II, the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force have sponsored several 

studies to predict future S&T developments to avoid technological surprise. For example, a 1947 

study chartered by the Army Air Force1 predicted a broad range of developments in aeronautics 

and air power and became a model for similar forecasting studies. In addition, the National 

Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies issues S&T projections for certain 

disciplines each decade and has a history of publishing S&T studies for various DoD agencies. 

The most recent DoD S&T forecasting studies were performed in the 1990s for the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force 

Unfortunately, retrospective analyses of the most recent Army forecasting study have revealed 

significant limitations of these predictive approaches in effectively guiding research and strategy 

for the future Army, as is discussed further in the following section. Given that changes in the 

S&T landscape can lead to new capabilities and new requirements for the warfighter, a method 

to more accurately predict the emergence of future scientific discoveries and applications is 

needed to improve the effectiveness of DoD S&T programs. This section explores a landmark 

Army forecasting study, and discusses several subsequent reviews that evaluated various 

approaches to S&T forecasting. Recognizing the limitations and potential advantages of various 

forecasting methods reveals the rationale for the forecasting approach used in the 

Mechanochemical Transduction Convergence Workshop. In the chapters that follow, we look at 

an Army forecast (STAR21) from the early 1990s—what it covered and how well it predicted 

events from a review conducted some 15 years later. Next we introduce the approach we call 

convergence forecasting. A workshop to study the efficacy of the approach has been designed at 

the Army Research Office using the topic mechanochemical transduction as the principle focus, 

and the details of the workshop are provided. The report ends with a summary and conclusions 

II. LANDMARK ARMY STUDY OF S&T FORECASTING—STAR21 

The most recent S&T forecasting study for the Army, STAR 21—Strategy Technologies for the 

Army of the Twenty-First Century, was completed by NRC and published in 1992.2 Similar 

studies were also performed for the Air Force3 and the Navy.4 Based on their predictions of the 

future S&T landscape, these studies have been used to guide certain aspects of DoD-wide 

 

1

 Theodore von Karman, Toward New Horizons (Washington, D.C.: United States Army Air Force, 1945). 2

 Board on Army Science and Technology, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National 

Research Council, STAR 21—Strategic Technologies for the Army of the Twenty-First Century (Washington, 

D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992). 

3

 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas, Air and Space Power for the 21st Century

(Washington, D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 1995). 

4

 Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 

2000–2035 (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997). 

2 
research. The STAR 21 study aimed to predict the future S&T environment and the 

corresponding impact on Army capabilities and strategy at least 30 years into the future (i.e., 

through 2020). The study had three specific objectives: 

1. Identify the advanced technologies most likely to be important to ground warfare in the 

next century 

2. Suggest strategies for developing the full potential of these technologies 

3. Project implications for force structure and strategy of the technology changes 

To reach these goals, NRC organized panels focused on various aspects of these three main 

objectives. These committees were diverse and composed of scientists, physicians, and other 

subject matter experts (SME) from academia, industry, and government. To accomplish the first 

objective, the study assessed state-of-the-art S&T of that period, and forecasted the technology 

that was likely to be available within 10 to 15 years and relevant to the Army, which could 

potentially be included in Army systems by 2020. The predicted technologies were divided into 

eight technology groups based on the most likely Army application; examples of these groups 

include electronics and sensors, biotechnology and biochemistry, and advanced materials. In 

addition, a long-term forecast of research identified 11 major technological trends expected in 

the next 30 years that would cut across the traditional boundaries of scientific disciplines, such as 

the information explosion, chemical synthesis by design, and the use of hybrid materials. 

Regarding the second objective, the study considered the technologies predicted in the first 

objective and then identified five Army-relevant systems through which the Army could most 

effectively integrate the future technologies to meet the principal mission areas, such as 

integrated support for the Solider, combat power and mobility, and winning the information war. 

Lastly, the study identified the potential implications of the future S&T environment to Army 

force structure and strategy. 

Many of the conclusions of the study considered the state of the Army and its observable 

capabilities at the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War. A key recommendation of the study was that 

the Army should maintain its current level of support for research and advanced technology (i.e., 

6.1-, 6.2-, and 6.3a-funded research), despite an anticipated reduction in overall research funding 

available for acquisition. 

The STAR 21 study informed Army leadership of the future importance of particular 

technologies and increased the awareness of the impact of S&T on the Army’s future capabilities 

at both the Army and DoD levels, as well as to congressional staff. The study also provided input 

to the Army’s principal S&T planning document: the Army Science and Technology Master 

Plan. Unfortunately, the accuracy of the STAR 21 predictions and the validity of its forecasting 

approach remained unknown until years later as discussed below. 

STAR 21 IN RETROSPECT 

Although it was well recognized that accurately forecasting S&T discoveries and developments 

30 years in the future is very difficult, the accuracy of the STAR 21 study’s predictions can only 

be assessed in retrospect. Given that a forecasting study’s prediction of the future S&T landscape 

is foundational to recommendations for future Army force structure and strategy changes, 

assessing the predictive accuracy of the STAR 21 study could be used to improve the approaches 

used in subsequent forecasting studies. 

3 
The Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) completed a review of the 

STAR 21 report in 2008.5 This review assessed the accuracy of the study’s predictions and 

revealed potential limitations in the underlying approach used by STAR 21 to forecast the future 

of S&T. The CTNSP assessment indicated that after 15 years, about 25 percent of the predictions 

were on target, while the remaining predictions were incorrect, overly optimistic, or too 

conservative. In other words, approximately 75 percent of the predictions were inaccurate after 

only 15 years. In addition, several pivotal S&T capabilities that emerged during that 15-year 

period were not predicted in the STAR 21 report, such as the impact of the Internet and the 

World Wide Web, the proliferation of personal computational devices, and the spread of wireless 

technology. (Complete details of the analysis of the STAR21 review are found in reference 5.) 

The CTNSP review of the STAR 21 study noted that evolutionary changes in S&T are easier to 

predict, while revolutionary developments are more difficult. Interestingly, the assessment also 

found that in general, STAR 21, as in similar studies by the Air Force and Navy, did not consider 

the future capabilities of individual systems with reference to the underlying sciences. The 

separation of future capabilities from the underlying S&T forecasts may have contributed to 

some of the study’s inaccurate and missed predictions. 

Given the rapid pace of technological change and the observed limitations of the STAR 21 study, 

the CTNSP review concluded that new approaches are needed to effectively forecast the future 

of S&T and the corresponding impact on the Army. The review also provided nine 

recommendations for the design and approach of future forecasting studies, such as (i) allow no 

more than 10 years between forecasting studies, (ii) forecasting studies should not cover all areas 

of technical interest at once, and (iii), the basic and applied aspects of an S&T field should be 

studied and reported together. 

A NEW STRATEGY FOR S&T FORECASTING 

In 2009 and 2010, the CTNSP issued two key papers that documented numerous cases where 

well-recognized capabilities and/or new scientific fields emerged because two or more scientific 

disciplines converged.6-7 In this context, convergence is defined as the multidisciplinary synergy 

of two or more research disciplines to create a new research area, capability, and/or technology 

that would probably not have emerged through exclusive study within a single area. 

A few examples of convergence are listed below. 

• Basic research in electromagnetic radiation and the development of microwave generators, 

transmitters, and power supplies converged to result in the advent of radar in 1936.8 

 

5

 John Lyons, Richard Chait, and Jordan Willcox, An Assessment of the Science and Technology Predictions 

in the Army’s STAR21 Report, Defense & Technology Paper 50 (Washington, D.C.: Center for Technology 

and National Security Policy, July 2008). 

6

 John Lyons, Richard Chait, and James Valdes, Forecasting Science and Technology for the Department of 

Defense, (Center for Technology and National Security Policy, November 2009). 7

 John Lyons, Richard Chait, and Simone Erchov, Editors, Improving the Army’s Next Effort in Technology 

Forecasting, (Center for Technology and National Security Policy, September 2010). 8

 Timothy Coffey, Jill Dahlburg, and Elihu Zimet, The S&T Innovation Conundrum, Defense & Technology 

Paper 17, (Washington, D.C.: Center for Technology and National Security Policy, August 2005). 

4 
• Genomics and information technology converged to form the new field of systems biology, 

which opened the door to individualized medical treatments and rational drug design based 

on differences at the molecular level rather than treatments based on group norms and 

averages. 

• Research in atomic physics leading to improved atomic clocks, computer sciences, 

communications technology, electronics, and space vehicle technology converged to enable 

the Global Positioning System. 

• Research in optical physics and materials science converged to enable night-vision 

capabilities. 

When one considers these and other examples9 of revolutionary capabilities that radically 

changed the battlefield over the past 50 years, it becomes evident that these capabilities all 

emerged from scientific advances across multiple research areas. 

The CTNSP reports concluded that since convergences have historically led to revolutionary 

S&T capabilities, creating “roadmaps” that outline potential convergences could provide a type 

of targeted forecasting that could predict revolutionary scientific discoveries, applications, and 

their corresponding impact on the Army. More specifically, the report recommended that 

technology forecasting should begin by (i) listing the outcomes and associated capabilities 

desired by the Army at a future time point, and then (ii) identifying confluences or convergences 

of individual sciences and technologies that would enable the realization of such capabilities. In 

addition, these papers concluded that it is possible to create an atmosphere within the Army’s 

research planning and investment activities that would enhance the probability that such 

convergences would occur, and would shape multidisciplinary research such that the 

convergences occur in directions most likely to benefit the Army. 

Interestingly, the 2010 CTNSP paper examined the clustering of research in chemical sciences 

and materials science that appear to be converging and giving rise to a new field: 

mechanochemical transduction. Mechanochemical transduction was then identified as a suitable 

case study to continue exploring the potential of these new S&T forecasting approaches, as is 

discussed further in Section III. 

III. WORKSHOP ON CONVERGENCE FORECASTING: 

MECHANOCHEMICAL TRANSDUCTION 

As discussed in the previous section, the landmark 1992 Army S&T forecasting study, STAR 21, 

was found to have poor predictive accuracy due in part to certain limitations in its forecasting 

methods. The subsequent CTNSP reviews of the STAR 21 study concluded that new approaches 

are needed to effectively forecast the future of S&T for the Army. 

The Army Research Office (ARO), working with the Army S&T staff, held the 2012 

Mechanochemical Transduction Convergence Workshop as a pilot approach for how a 

convergence forecasting study could be conducted. This workshop brought together researchers 

and government staff to predict how future convergences in mechanochemical transduction 

could result in revolutionarily Army capabilities or could result in changes in the S&T landscape 

 

9

 Refer to the aforementioned CTNSP articles for descriptions of other examples of convergence. 

5 
that would change Army force requirements. This workshop incorporated and tested the efficacy 

of many of the recommendations outlined by CTNSP in references 6 and 7 for use in future 

forecasting studies. 

OVERVIEW OF MECHANOCHEMICAL TRANSDUCTION 

Mechanochemical transduction is an emerging field at the intersection of chemistry and materials 

science that focuses on understanding and harnessing the fundamental processes through which 

mechanical stress can lead to chemical reaction. This research area involves the design and 

creation of materials at the molecular level such that when sufficient mechanical stress is exerted 

on the material in the proper orientation, the material responds at the molecular level with a predetermined chemical reaction that changes the structure and properties of the material. The longterm goals of this research are to design mechano-responsive molecules called mechanophores, 

and incorporate these molecules into materials, such as composites and coatings, to confer 

mechano-responsive properties. When subjected to mechanical force, the mechanophores within 

the bulk material will generate chemical changes, which if properly designed, result in beneficial 

macroscopic changes such as self-sensing or self-healing. 

Progress in this research area is contingent on people from a number of disciplines (e.g., 

chemists, materials scientists, and engineers) working cooperatively to design and synthesize 

mechanophores, incorporate them into material systems, and evaluate the mechanochemical 

response. Although there are only a few coordinated efforts of this type, ARO has taken a lead in 

this area since 2006 by supporting multidisciplinary programs to drive this research convergence 

into the future. 

Given that mechanochemical transduction is a new field at the forefront of a convergence 

between chemistry and materials science, this topic was identified as a suitable case study to 

explore new approaches for forecasting future S&T and to explore new methods for driving this 

research in directions likely to result in new Army-relevant capabilities. 

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH 

The goal of the workshop was to identify the most promising research opportunities and 

interdisciplinary convergences likely to extend and mature the field of mechanochemical 

transduction in ways relevant to Army needs. More specifically, the overall objectives of the 

Workshop were to: 

1. Assess the current state of research in mechanochemical transduction across disciplines 

2. Identify promising, long-range, S&T capabilities that may emerge and are relevant to 

Army capabilities 

3. Identify key barriers to success 

4. Identify convergence milestones necessary to achieve the long-range outcomes 

To meet these overall objectives, a diverse group of academic and government scientists were 

invited to participate in the workshop. Care was taken to invite academics with complementary 

interests and knowledge. The academic researchers who attended were SMEs across a wide 

range of disciplines, including chemical engineering, organic chemistry, physical organic 

6 
chemistry, molecular biochemistry, materials engineering, multi-scale theory, metallurgy, and 

physics. 

ARO organized and managed the workshop, along with Professor Josef Michl, University of 

Colorado, Boulder, who also served as a technical advisor. In addition, three government SMEs 

were invited to help provide the Army perspective on current Army S&T technical challenges. 

Three additional government staff representing the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Research and Technology (DASA[R&T]) and the National Defense University (NDU) also 

attended to observe how the workshop was conducted. A complete list of attendees is provided in 

Appendix A. 

To accomplish the workshop’s objectives of exploring convergence in mechanochemical 

transduction and determining how potential advances could lead to new capabilities for the 

Army, the workshop organizers designed a dynamic approach involving small-group “breakout 

sessions” and no formal presentations. (The agenda for the workshop is provided in Appendix 

B.)The execution of the meeting evolved in real time as the meeting progressed. To the 

knowledge of the organizers and participants, this approach had never been used before in a 

workshop. The goals and results of these sessions are presented in the following section. 

DETAILS OF THE WORKSHOP 

As introduced in the previous section, this workshop used a non-traditional format designed to 

achieve the overall objectives. Rather than using a traditional seminar format with PowerPoint 

presentations, which often limits communication to one dimension (i.e., presenter to audience), 

the organizers designed an interactive approach whereby the participants interacted in 

synergistic, cross-disciplinary, small group discussions. 

As illustrated in Figure 1, the workshop included three breakout sessions scheduled across 2 

days, with participants organized into groups and tasked to identify research areas with the 

greatest potential to converge at a new breakthrough in mechanochemical transduction, and how 

to shape these convergences to meet future needs of the Army. The dynamic nature of the 

workshop enabled the organizers to assess the results of each breakout session and use feedback 

from participants and the breakout groups’ reports to determine the optimal objectives and 

format for the subsequent session. 

The workshop began with the organizers introducing the academic participants. The organizers 

discussed how each researcher’s interests and experience were likely to contribute to the goals of 

the workshop, which ensured that attendees were aware of the rationale for each participant’s 

invitation to the workshop. After these introductions, the academic participants briefly 

summarized their research interests, and then the government attendees presented their research 

interests and noted their areas of expertise regarding Army needs and capabilities. 

7 
Figure 1. Mechanochemical Transduction Convergence Workshop Format 

The workshop did not consist of traditional slide presentations in seminar format; rather, the 

focus was on interactive, dynamic, cross-disciplinary small group discussions. 

8 
IV. WORKSHOP RESULTS 

SESSION 1 

The first breakout session consisted of three groups, composed of either academic or government 

participants. The academic participants were grouped separately from government participants to 

ensure that the academic groups initially focused on the scientific aspects of convergence. With 

guidance from the workshop organizers, the academic participants were allowed to self-select the 

membership of their breakout groups (Group 1 and Group 2) based on other researchers with 

whom they thought their research interests were most likely to form convergences. The 

government attendees formed a separate group (Group 3). 

The objectives of the academic and government groups differed (refer to Figure 1). The two 

academic groups were tasked to identify and forecast which of their research interests could 

potentially intersect in a convergence with complementary research from the other academics. 

The objective of Group 3, the group composed of government attendees, was to identify the 

near-, mid-, and long-term Army mission requirements that could be met with potential 

capabilities that could emerge from continued research in mechanochemical transduction. 

Group 1 identified potential convergences and new capabilities focused on the concept of 

remodeling, in which a material could “sense” mechanical damage and induce chemical changes 

where repair or realignment is needed. The following key concepts and future capabilities were 

forecasted by this group: 

• Smart failure: failure at predetermined locations; having things break in such a way as to 

enable repair or enhance strength 

• Based on the concept that paper is a remarkably strong material, use it to create a material 

that transduces orthogonal force into in-plane force 

• Transformation-induced plasticity, based on concepts in metallic systems 

• Use structured fluids to deliver forces locally to molecules 

• Consider liquid crystals for amplification: their behavior is highly nonlinear 

• “Mechanosetting” materials 

• Functionalized fibers where a phonon along a fiber induces a process 

• Chemical capacitors to ensure self-healing materials have high potential energy 

• Mechanochemical changes do not have to happen all at once; they could be designed to 

occur in stages 

The conclusions of Breakout Session 1, Group 1 regarding the major factors governing 

remodeling are summarized in Figure 2. The group noted that to drive the realization of these 

future research topics and capabilities, additional research would be required to further existing 

progress in investigating systems of material remodeling. 

9 
Figure 2. Results of Breakout Session 1, Group 1

The group identified several concepts that will govern future advances in remodeling 

capabilities.

Group 2 forecast the potential use of ultrasound as a mechanism to induce mechanochemical 

reactions. If ultrasound is to be used to provide the mechanical energy for subsequent chemical 

reactions, cavitation is required; however, it is currently difficult to identify whether cavitation is 

occurring at the molecular level. The group identified several potential future capabilities, 

focusing on the use of ultrasonics at solid-solid interfaces that may be enabled by convergences 

in mechanochemical transduction (see Figure 3). 

Figure 3. Potential Ultrasound-Mediated Capabilities in Mechanochemical Transduction 

Group 2 of Breakout Session 1 identified these potential ultrasonic-based mechanochemical 

transduction capabilities. 

10 
In addition, the group identified various factors that will limit the use of ultrasound-mediated 

mechanochemical transduction. They require further study to drive the emergence of these 

capabilities in the future (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Factors that Limit Potential Ultrasound-Mediated Mechanochemical 

Transduction Capabilities 

Group 2 of Breakout Session 1 identified these factors as a potential limit to the use of 

ultrasound-mediated mechanochemical transduction. 

Group 3, composed of government participants, identified where and how potential new 

capabilities emerging from research in mechanochemical transduction may enable new Army 

capabilities and/or change Army force requirements over the next 20 to 30 years. 

The group noted that compared to other physical and chemical phenomena, mechanochemical 

transduction is a less familiar domain, especially among the DoD user community. Therefore, in 

the ensuing discussions, the group struggled with whether mechanochemical transduction is a 

viable way to deliver the desired properties. While the group acknowledged that not all the 

concepts could be optimally realized through mechanochemical transduction, any concept or 

application that might benefit from mechanochemical transduction was considered, in 

recognition of the importance of avoiding technological surprise. 

Ultimately, Group 3 identified following three primary topic areas of interest to the Army that 

could potentially be impacted by mechanochemical transduction research: 

• Force protection 

• Engineered resilient systems 

• Lethal effects 

11 
SESSION 2 

As discussed previously, the unique and dynamic nature of the workshop required the organizers 

to review the results of the previous session to determine the most appropriate group 

organization and objectives for the subsequent session. 

Given that the Session 1 academic groups had successfully identified several potential scientific 

convergences in the area of mechanochemical transduction, and the government group had 

identified key areas of Army interest potentially influenced by ongoing research in 

mechanochemical transduction, the organizers determined that Session 2 would include three 

groups, each composed of academic researchers and at least one government representative. The 

government representatives were incorporated into these groups to provide guidance on Army 

needs and capabilities. 

The session objectives were to identify the most promising opportunities for a substantial 

convergence in mechanochemical transduction that would impact aspects of the 24 Army S&T 

challenges.10 Each group was given one challenge area on which to focus its discussion: force 

protection, engineered resilient systems, or lethal effects (refer to Figure 1). 

SESSION 2 

Group 1 of Session 1 identified a new penetration-resistant material as a capability that could 

potentially be enabled by convergences in mechanochemical transduction and would meet the 

Army S&T challenge area of Force Protection. As described below, the group defined how 

mechanochemical transduction could enable this new capability, identified the convergences 

required, and presented key scientific questions for future investigative research that must be 

addressed to enable these convergences. 

• Capability: A material that absorbs shock energy and disperses shock pressure, decreasing 

below lethal levels, and uses energy to transform material to a form able to resist subsequent 

penetration of fragments 

• Required convergences 

– Trauma/physiology 

– Shock physics/fluid dynamics 

– Chemical kinetics 

– Blast anatomy 

– Material design 

– Mechanics engineering 

– Non-linear dynamics 

• Key scientific questions: 

– How do you stop a shock? 

– Can non-linear mesoscale structures control shocks? 

– Could material reaction be automatically reversible post-impact? 

 

10

 The office of DASA(R&T) recently reported the 24 Army S&T Challenges of the future. A list of these 

challenges is available at: https://www.alt.army.mil/portal/page/portal/oasaalt/SAAL-ZT.

12 
– How will lamellar structures provide interfaces for multiple responses (Initiate 

reactions? Disperse shocks? Absorb energy through interface delamination?)? 

– What material transformations are needed to defeat fragments? 

Group 2 identified a capability that could potentially be enabled by convergences in 

mechanochemical transduction and would meet the Army S&T challenge area of Engineered 

Resilient Systems. The group defined the concept of a “Molecular Foundry” as a set of methods 

and concepts in materials science, not yet identified, able to capitalize on harvesting the 

mechanical energy in materials that is currently dissipated and capturing that energy to power 

active sensing and regenerative capabilities. This Molecular Foundry would include a variety of 

beneficial features for new capabilities, but would require addressing several scientific 

challenges and also the convergence of multiple scientific areas. 

• Features of the Molecular Foundry: 

– Design of components at the molecular scale with the ability of molecules to “talk” to 

components 

– Radically new level of processing to result in new material properties 

– Intelligent dynamic control anticipated during material design 

– Cost benefits 

• Scientific challenges associated with realizing the Molecular Foundry: 

– Ability to exploit a wide spectrum of mechanical energy 

– Ability to operate across size scales from molecular to mesoscopic, encompassing 

transitions from phase transitions to chemical bonds to electron transfer 

– Ability to realize a self-aware sensing paradigm across length scales 

• Realization of the Molecular Foundry demands convergence of many fields, including fluid 

dynamics, computer science, materials science, mechanical engineering, biochemistry, 

biophysics, biomimetics, synthetic chemistry, and others 

As an example of the potential applications of this Foundry, the group identified 

mechanochemically triggered polymeric materials for manipulating mechanical force as a 

potential capability that could address aspects of the Army’s needs in Engineered Resilient 

Systems. For example, this capability could enable the use of energy from a mechanical impact 

to stop subsequent bleeding, a body-temperature trigger to shift weight load of soldiers carrying 

heavy packs, and regenerative materials to store energy and provide recovery properties. 

Group 3 identified new energetic materials as a capability that could be enabled by convergences 

in mechanochemical transduction and could meet the Army S&T challenge area of Lethal 

Effects. More specifically, the group identified the following capabilities as potentially relevant 

for addressing the Army’s challenge area of Lethal Effects. 

• Energetics where the rate of energy release can be better controlled 

• Changing the sensitivity of energetics by controlling the defects (possibly relieving stress) 

• Controlling microstructure of energetics (polymorphs, seeding crystal formation and 

growth) 

• Pressure effects on reaction kinetics 

• Delivery of same explosive force with less weight 

13 
SESSION 3 

At the conclusion of the first day of the workshop (i.e., after completion of Sessions 1 and 2), the 

organizers compiled reports from all groups in the first two sessions and feedback from 

individual participants. The organizers assessed these results to determine the objectives for the 

final session of the workshop. 

The organizers concluded that the participants found key research areas that would lead to 

research breakthroughs and may converge to enable future capabilities relevant to the Army; 

however, the groups did not identify where specific research convergences must occur to form 

the foundation of these capabilities. The membership of each group in Session 3 remained the 

same as for the previous session, and the groups were tasked to explore their previous results and 

create a forecasting roadmap to identify the convergences that must occur to enable the future 

Army capabilities previously identified in Session 2. 

Group 1 of Session 3 identified four scientific breakthroughs that could be enabled by 

convergence of disparate scientific disciplines leading to a material with a targeted application 

(see Figure 5). 

Figure 5. Forecasting New Capabilities and Required Convergences for Force Protection 

Session 3, Group 1 outlined the mechanochemical transduction convergences required to enable 

new capabilities for addressing Army needs in Force Protection. 

14 
Group 2 expanded the conceptual model of the Molecular Foundry to identify the areas of 

research and development that must converge to enable the Foundry. The group constructed a 

process flow diagram, as represented in Figures 6 through 8. 

Figure 6. The Molecular Foundry 

Session 3, Group 2 outlined how a conceptual Molecular Foundry of the future could leverage 

energy capture and dissipation to enable applications in various domains. 

Figure 7. Forecasting Required Convergences to Enable Property Engineering 

Session 3, Group 2 outlined the projected mechanochemical transduction convergences that will 

enable the engineering of new properties, such as interface design, and may generate new Army 

capabilities in Engineered Resilient Systems. 

15 
Figure 8. Forecasting New Capabilities and Required Convergences for Engineered 

Resilient Systems 

Session 3, Group 2 outlined the active components of the high-energy storage and low-energy 

conversion processes that enable this new method for integrating materials using the Foundry 

concept.

Note that Group 3 revisited the concept of enhanced-lethality materials, considering all the 

possible contributing scientific fields and what convergences must result that would enable this 

new capability. The group generated a convergence forecasting flowchart to illustrate these 

concepts (see Figure 9). 

16 
Figure 9. Forecasting New Capabilities and Required Convergences for Lethal Effects 

Session 3, Group 3 outlined the underlying scientific fields that must converge and the scientific 

barriers that must be overcome to enable enhanced-lethality materials based on 

mechanochemical transduction concepts. 

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

In January 2012, the ARO held the Mechanochemical Transduction Convergences Workshop to 

identify promising convergences of scientific disciplines and their impact on science and the 

Army. A diverse group of academic and government scientists representing chemical 

engineering, organic chemistry, physical organic chemistry, molecular biochemistry, materials 

engineering, multi-scale theory, metallurgy, and physics were assembled. The focus of the 

workshop was to identify the most promising research opportunities and interdisciplinary 

convergences that could lead the field of mechanochemical transduction in new directions with 

unexpected outcomes that would be relevant to future Army needs and capabilities. 

In the preliminary phase of the workshop, where academic and government participants were 

kept in separate groups, academic discussions identified convergences surrounding the themes of 

remodeling (a material could “sense” mechanical damage and induce chemical changes where 

repair or realignment is needed) and ultrasound (as a mechanism to induce mechanochemical 

reactions, particularly at solid-solid interfaces). Preliminary government discussions identified 

relevant Army capabilities surrounding the themes of force protection, engineered resilient 

systems, and lethal effects. 

17 
In the final phase of the workshop, discussions integrating academic and government 

perspectives produced three convergence roadmaps. These convergence roadmaps outlined 

where and how the synergy of two or more research disciplines is likely to lead to scientific 

breakthroughs enabling a new research area, capability, and/or technology. The first convergence 

roadmap, targeting the theme of force protection, predicted a material that absorbs shock energy 

and disperses shock pressure (decreasing below lethal levels), and that uses energy to transform 

and resist subsequent penetration of fragments. The key scientific breakthroughs predicted to 

enable such a capability were: rapid pressure-sensitive chemically reactive materials, and rapid 

pressure-driven phase transforming materials. Both of these breakthroughs were predicted to 

result from the convergence of synthetic chemistry, materials synthesis, polymer and material 

physics, and computational chemistry. 

The second convergence roadmap, targeting the theme of engineered resilient systems, predicted 

the sublimation of energy from a mechanical impact to stop subsequent bleeding and initiate 

wound treatment, a body-temperature trigger to shift weight load of soldiers carrying heavy 

packs, and regenerative materials to store energy and provide recovery properties. The key 

scientific breakthroughs predicted to enable such a capability were the ability to controllably 

capture and dissipate energy, and the ability to design and manage material interfaces. The first 

breakthrough was predicted to result from the convergence of quantitative sensors, singlemolecule-readouts modeling, synthesis, and kinetics; the second from the convergence of 

hierarchical materials synthesis, modeling, phase-specific sensors, and interfacial stress sensors. 

The third convergence roadmap, addressing lethal effects, predicted new energetic materials with 

dramatically controlled sensitivity and rate of energy release. The key scientific breakthroughs 

that were predicted to enable such capabilities were the identification of materials that are labile 

or can be activated, and of pressure-selective reactions. Both of these breakthroughs were 

predicted to result from the convergence of multi-scale computational modeling, synthetic 

chemistry, materials science, and chemical engineering. 

Accurately forecasting science and technology discoveries and developments is extraordinarily 

challenging and difficult to assess. The accuracy of a study’s predictions can only be assessed in 

retrospect; however, several significant conclusions can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of 

the Mechanochemical Transduction Convergences Workshop. First, the dynamic approach that 

used small-group “breakout sessions” and no formal presentations, evolved in real time as the 

meeting progressed, and produced unique results. In particular, this approach focused the 

discussions on capabilities and scientific disciplines that had been jointly established as the most 

promising by the government and academic participants. This minimized external biases and 

enabled discussions and themes to adapt and evolve based on the interactions of the expert 

participants. Second, the dynamic approach with a small group of experts catalyzed the 

formation of a new community of government and academic researchers with a common vision 

for advancing the science of mechanochemical transduction and for providing new capabilities to 

the Army. Third, while no new specific scientific convergence was identified, the results from 

the three convergence roadmaps are highly consistent with the most recent opportunities 

identified by the ARO basic research program managers who have led the Mechanochemical 

Transduction Program from its inception. 

In summary, this workshop was found to be an effective means for bringing the academic and 

government research communities together to explore how several disciplines could work 

18 
19 

together to advance a research area in new, beneficial directions that could lead to new Army 

capabilities. The result is that several promising research directions were identified. The 

convergence technique should be useful, when used with other approaches, to help design the 

Army’s S&T portfolio. 
APPENDIX A: LIST OF ATTENDEES 

Professor Nicholas Abbott 

Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering 

University of Wisconsin, Madison 

Professor Anna Balazs 

Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering 

University of Pittsburgh 

Professor Ian Bond 

Department of Aerospace Engineering 

University of Bristol 

Professor AJ Boydston 

Department of Chemistry 

University of Washington 

Dr. Richard Chait 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

National Defense University 

Professor Stephen Craig 

Department of Chemistry 

Duke University 

Professor William Curtin 

Division of Engineering 

Brown University 

Mr. John Kincaid 

U.S. Army Capabilities Integration Center 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

Dr. Douglas Kiserow 

Physical Sciences Directorate 

U.S. Army Research Office 

Ms. Lynne Krogsrud 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command 

Dr. Stephen Lee 

U.S. Army Research Office 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

Dr. John Lyons 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

National Defense University 

Professor H. Peter Lu

Department of Chemistry 

Bowling Green State University

20 
21 

Professor Josef Michl 

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry 

University of Colorado, Boulder 

Professor John Perepezko 

Department of Materials Science and Engineering 

University of Wisconsin, Madison 

Dr. Peter Reynolds 

Physical Sciences Directorate 

U.S. Army Research Office 

Dr. Betsy Rice

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

Mr. Steven Scharf 

Dynetics, Inc. 

Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology 

Mr. Albert Sciarretta 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

National Defense University 

Dr. David Stepp 

Materials Science Division 

U.S. Army Research Office 

Professor Laszlo Takacs 

Department of Physics 

University of Maryland 

LTC Timothy Warner 

U.S. Army Research Office 

Ms. Ann Breckenkamp 

Ms. Cathy Cotell 

Mr. Rick Rhoads 

Mr. David Roberts 

Noblis, Inc.
APPENDIX B: WORKSHOP AGENDA 

Day 1—Wednesday, January 11, 2012 

Time Agenda Item Speakers/Leaders 

0800–0830 Registration and coffee 

0830–0840 Administrative remarks Rhoads, Stepp, 

Kiserow 

0840–0910 Introduction to Mechanochemical Transduction and Convergence 

Forecasting 

Stepp, Kiserow, 

Lee, Reynolds 

0910–0930 Alignment of attendees and workshop goals (Academic attendee 

introductions) Stepp, Kiserow 

0930–1000 Government attendee introductions Government 

attendees 

1000–1030 Break 

1030–1130 Academic research area descriptions and Q&As Academics 

1130–1200 Academics list others they wish to work with to determine convergences 

(ARO organizers assign three groups) Stepp, Kiserow 

1200–1300 Lunch 

1300–1530 Breakout assignments and Breakout Session #1 discussions Stepp, Kiserow 

1530–1600 Break 

1600–1700 Breakout group reports Academic Groups 

1700 Day 1 Wrap up Stepp, Kiserow 

Day 2—Thursday, January 12, 2012 

0830–0900 Administrative remarks. Underline focus on convergences. Stepp, Kiserow, 

Reynolds 

0900–1000 Approaches to Army S&T Briefing Scharf 

1000–1030 Academics list others they wish to work with to determine convergences 

(ARO organizers assign three groups) Stepp, Kiserow 

1030–1130 Breakout Assignments and Breakout Session #2 discussions 

1130–1200 Breakout group reports Academic Groups 

1200–1330 

Working lunch 

Breakout assignments and Breakout Session #3 discussions 

(same groups as Session #2) 

1330–1400 Breakout group reports Academic Groups 

1400–1430 Break 

1430–1500 Day 2 Wrap up Stepp, Kiserow 

22