Data Infrastructure Elements in Support of Accelerated Materials Innovation: ELA, PyMKS, and MATIN

  • Surya R. KalidindiEmail author
  • Ali Khosravani
  • Berkay Yucel
  • Apaar Shanker
  • Aleksandr L. Blekh
Technical Article


Materials data management, analytics, and e-collaborations have been identified as three of the main technological gaps currently hindering the realization of the accelerated development and deployment of advanced materials targeted by the federal materials genome initiative. In this paper, we present our ongoing efforts aimed at addressing these critical gaps through the customized design and build of suitable data infrastructure elements. Specifically, our solutions include: (1) ELA—an experimental and laboratory automation software platform that systematically tracks interrelationships between the heterogeneous experimental datasets (i.e., provenance) acquired from diverse sample preparation and materials characterization equipment in a single consistent metadata database, (2) PyMKS—the first Python-based open-source materials data analytics framework that can be used to create high-fidelity, reduced-order (i.e., low computational cost), process–structure–property linkages for a broad range of material systems with a rich hierarchy of internal structures spanning multiple length scales, and (3) MATIN—a HUBzero-based software platform aimed at nucleating an emergent e-science community at the intersection of materials science, manufacturing, and computer science, and facilitating highly productive digital collaborations among geographically and organizationally distributed materials innovation stakeholders. This paper provides a timely report of lessons learned from these interrelated efforts.


Data infrastructure Materials innovation Materials discovery Materials informatics Cyberinfrastructure MGI 



The authors acknowledge support for this work from NIST 70NANB18H039 (Program Manager: Dr. James Warren). MATIN platform was developed with support from GT’s IMAT and Office of Executive Vice-President for Research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    National Science and Technology Council (2011) Materials genome initiative for global competitivenessGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Olson GB, Kuehmann CJ (2014) Materials genomics: from CALPHAD to flight. Scr Mater 70:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McDowell DL, Olson GB (2008) Concurrent design of hierarchical materials and structures. Sci Model Simul 15:207–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hao S et al (2003) A hierarchical multi-physics model for design of high toughness steels. J Comput Aided Mater Des 10:99–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olson GB (2006) Advances in theory: martensite by design. Mater Sci Eng, A 438:48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adams BL, Kalidindi SR, Fullwood DT (2012) Microstructure sensitive design for performance optimization. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fullwood DT et al (2010) Microstructure sensitive design for performance optimization. Prog Mater Sci 55(6):477–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    TMS (2017) Building a materials data infrastructure: opening new pathways to discovery and innovation in science and engineering. TMS, Pittsburgh, p xxvi,72Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McDowell DL, Kalidindi SR (2016) The materials innovation ecosystem: a key enabler for the materials genome initiative. MRS Bull 41(04):326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalidindi SR (2015) Data science and cyberinfrastructure: critical enablers for accelerated development of hierarchical materials. Int Mater Rev 60(3):150–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalidindi SR, Medford AJ, McDowell DL (2016) Vision for data and informatics in the future materials innovation ecosystem. JOM 68(8):2126–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalidindi SR, Graef MD (2015) Materials data science: current status and future outlook. Annu Rev Mater Res 45:171–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Mara J, Meredig B, Michel K (2016) Materials data infrastructure: a case study of the citrination platform to examine data import, storage, and access. JOM 68(8):2031–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dima A et al (2016) Informatics infrastructure for the materials genome initiative. JOM 68(8):2053–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jain A, Persson KA, Ceder G (2016) Research update: the materials genome initiative: data sharing and the impact of collaborative ab initio databases. APL Mater 4(5):053102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pfeif EA, Kroenlein K (2016) Perspective: data infrastructure for high throughput materials discovery. APL Mater 4(5):053203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilkinson MD, et al (2016) The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3:160018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    International DOI Foundation (IDF) (2018) Available from:
  19. 19.
    HDL.NET® Information Services (2019) Available from:
  20. 20.
    Dieter GE (ed) (1997) Materials selection and design. Cleveland, ASM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ashby MF, Greer AL (2006) Metallic glasses as structural materials. Scr Mater 54(3):321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cahn RW, Haasen P (1996) Physical metallurgy. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olson GB (2000) Designing a new material world. Science 288(5468):993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Olson GB (1997) Computational design of hierarchically structured materials. Science 277(29):1237–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Olson GB (1997) Systems design of hierarchically structured materials: advanced steels. J Comput-Aided Mater Des 4:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McDowell DL et al (2009) Integrated design of multiscale, multifunctional materials and products. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kalidindi SR (2015) Hierarchical materials informatics. Butterworth Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gomberg JA, Medford AJ, Kalidindi SR (2017) Extracting knowledge from molecular mechanics simulations of grain boundaries using machine learning. Acta Mater. 133(Supplement C):100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    PRedictive Integrated Structural Materials Science (PRISMS).
  30. 30.
    Materials Data Curation System (MDCS).
  31. 31.
    Blaiszik B et al (2016) The materials data facility: data services to advance materials science research. JOM 68(8):2045–2052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    The Materials Data Facility (MDF) (2019).
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    The Material Data Management Consortium (MDMC).
  35. 35.
    The Materials Experiment and Analysis Database (MEAD).
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
    Pendleton IM et al (2019) Experiment specification, capture and laboratory automation technology (ESCALATE): a software pipeline for automated chemical experimentation and data management. MRS Commun 2:1–14Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dryad Digital Repository (2019).
  39. 39.
    Vogt H (2002) Efficient object identification with passive RFID tags. In: International conference on pervasive computing. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology, G. Maryland. NIST schema repository and registry.
  41. 41.
    Garcia L, et al (2017) Bioschemas: for the life sciences. proceedings of SWAT4LSGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brough DB, Wheeler D, Kalidindi SR (2017) Materials knowledge systems in Python—a data science framework for accelerated development of hierarchical materials. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 6:36–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    The Materials Project.
  44. 44.
    JARVIS (Joint Automated Repository for Various Integrated Simulations).
  45. 45.
    The Novel Materials Discovery (NOMAD) Laboratory.
  46. 46.
    Torquato S (2013) Random heterogeneous materials: microstructure and macroscopic properties, vol 16. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brough DB, Wheeler D, Kalidindi SR (2017) Materials knowledge systems in python—a data science framework for accelerated development of hierarchical materials. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 6(1):36–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kalidindi SR et al (2015) Application of data science tools to quantify and distinguish between structures and models in molecular dynamics datasets. Nanotechnology 26(34):344006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brough DB et al (2017) Extraction of process-structure evolution linkages from X-ray scattering measurements using dimensionality reduction and time series analysis. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 6(2):147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Brough DB et al (2017) Microstructure-based knowledge systems for capturing process-structure evolution linkages. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 21(3):129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Popova E et al (2017) Process-structure linkages using a data science approach: application to simulated additive manufacturing data. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 6(1):54–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Paulson NH et al (2017) Reduced-order structure-property linkages for polycrystalline microstructures based on 2-point statistics. Acta Mater 129:428–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    GitHub (2019).
  54. 54.
    Conda-Forge (2019).
  55. 55.
    Wheeler D, Brough DB (2017) PyMKS.
  56. 56.
    Kowalczyk K, Gambin W (2004) Model of plastic anisotropy evolution with texture-dependent yield surface. Int J Plast 20(1):19–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Team DD (2016) Dask: library for dynamic task scheduling.
  58. 58.
    Wheeler D, Brough DB (2017) PyMKS examples.
  59. 59.
    CI C (2019) Circle CI tutorials and sample apps.
  60. 60.
    Travis C (2018) Test and deploy your code with confidence.
  61. 61.
    Pedregosa F et al (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res. 12:2825–2830Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Materials Innovation Network (MATIN) (2019).
  63. 63.
    HUBzero. [cited 2016 March 6].
  64. 64.
  65. 65.
    Globus (2019).
  66. 66.
    iData—Data Management with Geospatial and Metadata Support (2019).
  67. 67.
    The geospatial data analysis building blocks (GABBs) (2019).
  68. 68.
    Zhao L. et al. (2017) GABBs-reusable geospatial data analysis building blocks for science gateways. In: IWSGGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    gUSE grid and cloud science gateway (2019).
  70. 70.
    Apache Airavata (2016).
  71. 71.
    Open Science Framework (OSF) (2019).
  72. 72.
    CyVerse (2019).
  73. 73.
    Goff SA et al (2011) The iPlant collaborative: cyberinfrastructure for plant biology. Front Plant Sci 2:34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Merchant N et al (2016) The iPlant collaborative: cyberinfrastructure for enabling data to discovery for the life sciences. PLoS Bio 14(1):e1002342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Partnership for an Advanced Computing Environment (PACE) (2019).
  76. 76.
    The Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE). (2018).
  77. 77.
    The Center for Materials Design Development and Deployment (MD3) (2019).
  78. 78.
    Robo-Met Materials Characterization.
  79. 79.
    Autonomous Materials Discovery (AiMade).
  80. 80.
  81. 81.
    Nikolaev P et al (2016) Autonomy in materials research: a case study in carbon nanotube growth. Comput Mater 2(1):16031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Maruyama B, et al (2017) Autonomous experimentation applied to carbon nanotube synthesis. In: Meeting abstracts. The Electrochemical SocietyGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Granda JM et al (2018) Controlling an organic synthesis robot with machine learning to search for new reactivity. Nature 559(7714):377–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Steiner S et al (2019) Organic synthesis in a modular robotic system driven by a chemical programming language. Science 363(6423):eaav2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Fitzpatrick DE, Battilocchio C, Ley SV (2016) A novel internet-based reaction monitoring, control and autonomous self-optimization platform for chemical synthesis. Org Process Res Dev 20(2):386–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Cortés-Borda D et al (2018) An autonomous self-optimizing flow reactor for the synthesis of natural product carpanone. J Org Chem 83(23):14286–14299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Henson AB, Gromski PS, Cronin L (2018) Designing algorithms to aid discovery by chemical Robots. ACS Central Sci 4(7):793–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Dragone V et al (2017) An autonomous organic reaction search engine for chemical reactivity. Nat Commun 8(1):15733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kalidindi SR, Pathak S (2008) Determination of the effective zero-point and the extraction of spherical nanoindentation stress–strain curves. Acta Mater 56(14):3523–3532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Pathak S, Shaffer J, Kalidindi SR (2009) Determination of an effective zero-point and extraction of indentation stress–strain curves without the continuous stiffness measurement signal. Scr Mater 60(6):439–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hofmann DC et al (2014) Developing gradient metal alloys through radial deposition additive manufacturing. Sci Rep 4:5357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Zhang Y et al (2008) Characterization of laser powder deposited Ti–TiC composites and functional gradient materials. J Mater Process Technol 206(1):438–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Bobbio LD et al (2017) Additive manufacturing of a functionally graded material from Ti–6Al–4 V to Invar: experimental characterization and thermodynamic calculations. Acta Mater 127:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Qian T-T et al (2014) Microstructure of TA2/TA15 graded structural material by laser additive manufacturing process. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 24(9):2729–2736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Gu DD et al (2012) Laser additive manufacturing of metallic components: materials, processes and mechanisms. Int Mater Rev 57(3):133–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Zuback JS, Palmer TA, DebRoy T (2019) Additive manufacturing of functionally graded transition joints between ferritic and austenitic alloys. J Alloy Compd 770:995–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Khosravani A, Cecen A, Kalidindi SR (2017) Development of high throughput assays for establishing process-structure-property linkages in multiphase polycrystalline metals: application to dual-phase steels. Acta Mater 123:55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Weaver JS et al (2016) On capturing the grain-scale elastic and plastic anisotropy of alpha-Ti with spherical nanoindentation and electron back-scattered diffraction. Acta Mater 117:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Iskakov A et al (2018) Application of spherical indentation and the materials knowledge system framework to establishing microstructure-yield strength linkages from carbon steel scoops excised from high-temperature exposed components. Acta Mater 144:758–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    ASTM E8 / E8M-15a (2015) Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  101. 101.
    Standard Test Methods of Compression Testing of Metallic Materials at Room Temperature (2009). ASTM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Standard Test Methods for Bend Testing of Metallic Flat Materials for Spring Applications Involving Static Loading (2013). ASTM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Standard Test Method for Shear Modulus at Room Temperature. 2013, ASTM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Kalidindi SR (2019) A Bayesian framework for materials knowledge systems. MRS Commun 9(2):518–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Xue D et al (2016) Accelerated search for materials with targeted properties by adaptive design. Nat Commun 7:11241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Balachandran PV et al (2016) Adaptive strategies for materials design using uncertainties. Sci Rep 6:19660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Kiyohara S et al (2016) Acceleration of stable interface structure searching using a kriging approach. Jpn J Appl Phys 55(4):045502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Seko A et al (2014) Machine learning with systematic density-functional theory calculations: Application to melting temperatures of single-and binary-component solids. Phys Rev B 89(5):054303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Seko A et al (2015) Prediction of low-thermal-conductivity compounds with first-principles anharmonic lattice-dynamics calculations and Bayesian optimization. Phys Rev Lett 115(20):205901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Wigley PB et al (2016) Fast machine-learning online optimization of ultra-cold-atom experiments. Sci Rep 6:25890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Ueno T et al (2016) COMBO: an efficient Bayesian optimization library for materials science. Mater Discov 4:18–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical EngineeringGeorgia TechAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.School of Computational Science and EngineeringGeorgia TechAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations