Alison McMillan

Education

After secondary school in Scotland, I moved south to study for a BSc in Mathematics and Physics at University College London, followed by an MSc in Applied Mechanics at Cranfield, and PhD in the Physics Division at Staffordshire University.

The PhD started out as a project investigating impact failure in polycrystaline carbon control rods using in the nuclear industry. After a year, there were major changes in the UK Atomic Energy Authority, and our industry partners pulled out. That summer I discovered that there was a lot of interest in the aerospace industry in impact of carbon fibre reinforced plastics, coded up a laminate stiffness calculator, worked out the modal analysis, and applied that to the impact analsyis calculator that I'd developed for carbon rods. I contacted Rolls-Royce, and subsequently they became collaborators and provided test specimen data for the validation of my models.

I then held three postdoc positions, the first of which was in Engineering Science at the University of Oxford using evolutionary computing and mathematical analysis to optimise engineering structures to create a passive vibration pass band. As such, I was an early pioneer of parallel computing, networking the computers in two computer labs and running massive jobs over the undergraduate holidays.

My second and third postdocs were at Keele University. The first of these was in the Mathematics Department, modelling the self-excited vibration of railway wheel squeal. This is a non-linear dynamics problem, and the simplistic expectation of increasing damping provides only a limited solution. The paper I wrote on this work has been one of the most highly cited of my career, and won me the EASD-ANIV "Special Mention" in 1999.

My third postdoc was in the Communication and Neuroscience Department, working on a computer science project related to speech recognition systems. Within the first three months, I had determined mathematically that the algorithm that my supervisor wanted me to encode would not work, because it was in breach of Nyquist's law, a signal processing sampling principle that is mathematically identical to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I thought it was pointless to spend tax payers' money on research that was fundamentally flawed, and applied for jobs in industry.

Rolls-Royce plc

After an interview in which I was unable to answer any technical questions, but asked a lot of technical questions myself, I was amazed to be offered a job in stress analysis in the Transmissions and Structures area. In those days, the designers still used paper on enormous design boards, and it took months before I was allocated a computer on which to do the stress analysis work, so I managed a team of external contractors, and coordinated the certification paperwork. After about six months I moved into capability acquisition team, where I coordinated R&D programmes applied to manufacturing methods development for engine structures.

After a while my role diversified and was given responsibility for the shafts work package for the A400M aircraft. This project was put on hold following 9/11, because the aerospace industry had to retrench. There was a freeze on recruitment, and many staff on shelved projects were redeployed to other departments. In my case I moved to Fan Systems, to work in the Impact Group: the team responsible for test validation and DYNA impact analysis prediction of bird strike, fan blade off, and engine containment of debris. I spend a year working on a new layered containment casing concept, now in service on Trent 900 engines (on A380 aircraft). This meant developing FEA analysis methods, mathematical construction of "material" properties to represent the layered structures, measuring those "material" properties by cunningly designed test methods, and then validating the whole analysis process through a lab scale test programme. The methodology was then applied to the complete containment casing, and validated in a full fan blade off test.

At around this time, my innovation activities and interest in the patent process were being recognised, and I was give the part-time role of Intellectual Property Representative for the business unit, sitting alongside my impact analysis role. The role entailed encouraging colleagues to recognise their innovations as being patentable, and emphasising the value of patents to the company. In the period I held that role, we reached double the business unit target for new invention disclosures. An additional aspect of this work was export control, and this became much more complicated as a result of the company's involvement in two variants of the USA Joint Strike Fighter development programme. I won an internal award for my work in developing the process around export control data management, and supporting colleagues to be compliant.

Subsequent to this, I was given responsibility for leading the strategy methods development for composite fan and composite containment casings. A major part of this was growing the team of expertise, both by recruitment into and from within the company to build the in-house expertise, and by building and strengthening relationships with universities and potential supply-chain partners. I coordinated the development of the University Technology Centre at Bristol, and integrated that with impact analysis, testing, and other relevant capabilities at Oxford, Imperial College, Nottingham, Southampton, Ulster and TU Dresden.

Over time, as the methods programmes matured, and the capability came closer to Technology Readiness Level 6, there was a handover of the strategy to those who would lead the development of the manufacturing base, and the new product introduction phase. As my own role grew smaller, I saw an opportunity to refresh my interest in the modelling and characterisation of composites, and work more closely with the academics. I was successful in bidding for a Royal Society Industry Fellowship, which I held for 4 years, part-time, primarily with the University of Bristol, but also collaborating with Imperial College, Ulster, Oxford, and Dresden. My initial interest in effect of defects in composites became more generalised, as I came to realise that defects and surface roughness were under-investigated in metallic components too.

Now

These days I am still working on defects and surface roughness. I've tried to place the concept of material fatigue in the realm of prediction based on well-established physics (elasticity and plasticity), based on an understanding of defect distribution and surface roughness characteristics. There is still a long way to go, but this approach provide potential value in reducing cost of the "pyramid of testing" required of a full statistically based fatigue test programme.

There has been some significant interest in the approach in the context of additively manufactured high duty components, where the method of manufacture is prone to defects. Work undertaken in collaboration with Professor Rhys Jones AC (Monash, and Visiting Professor at Wrexham) has had impact with the US Navy and their aircraft sustainment plans.

Aside from engineering materials related research, I am also developing an inter- and trans-disciplinary practice. As an engineer with a strong background in mathematics, physics and computing, there is a lot of scope for interdisciplinary activity. The transdisciplinary side is more interesting, and (to my mind) gaining a higher level of importance. As engineers (and other STEM-ists) our imperative is to use our knowledge and skills to solve technological problems. What we don't typically do is build a detailed view of what problems ought to be solved. In the discipline of "Process Excellence" there is a tool called "The Five Whys". The idea is to get to the root cause of a manufacturing process problem by asking "Why?" at increasing levels of detail, until the root cause of a problem is exposed. I believe a similar approach is needed of our innovation work: engineers (STEM-ists) need greater engagement with people and how they lead their lives, to ensure that the time and energy we spend in our work does pass to improvements in those lives, and not simply add to complications and costs.

The Climate Change and Net Zero issue is a case in point: the "needs and uses" of energy increase faster than we can address improvements in machine efficiency. What we need to do is to recognise that many of these "needs and uses" have grown up on systematic inefficiencies caused by solving the wrong problems. The difficulty is seeing through all the interconnected complexity, and seeing what opportunities there are to circumvent the whole, and move directly to a new solution. This approach is called Transition Engineering. In addition to Transition Engineering, we also need to remove our biases. Although engineers come from all backgrounds, our day-to-day lives are location specific. We live our own lives, and not other people's. A greater engagement with diverse groups, could help us see beyond our own perceptions of what solutions are important.